March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012]
MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 199914 (Mel Mike Gamin y Tari v. People of the Philippines) - We resolve the petition under Rule 45 filed by accused Mel Mike Gamin y Tari (petitioner) from the 15 September 2011 Decision and 22 December 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32598.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its 25 March 2009 Decision,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 67, convicted petitioner of violating Section 11, Article II, of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 0.02 gram of shabu for which he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000. The RTC gave credence to the straightforward and candid testimonies of the police officers. Petitioner's arrest and the discovery of the drugs, as recited in the testimony, were accorded the presumption of regularity. The trial court also found petitioner's defense of denial to be weak, uncorroborated, and self-serving.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA held that the requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs were fully satisfied. The defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute a serious crime to petitioner. Thus, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The CA further ruled that the chain of custody over the seized substance was unbroken, and that the drugs seized from petitioner was properly identified before the trial court.
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting officers, less so in the present case wherein the said findings were affirmed by the CA.
Petitioner contends that the CA erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in finding that there was an unbroken chain of custody with respect to the allegedly confiscated drugs.
With respect to the first issue, petitioner contends that the prosecution's version of events � that the police officers confiscated the plastic sachet containing the dangerous drug when petitioner attempted to surreptitiously throw it while he was being investigated at the police station for a traffic violation � is incredible. Petitioner claims that the standard procedure for the arrest of offenders is to search and frisk the latter. Had such search and frisk been conducted, there would have been no doubt as to the source of the plastic sachet.
Indeed, the test for determining the credibility of a complainant's testimony is whether it is in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[3] In this case, however, the fact that no search immediately followed petitioner's arrest does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecution was false. In People v. Esguerra,[4] the accused therein also contested the fact that he was not searched at the time of his arrest, and that the drugs on his person were discovered when they were already at the police station. This Court explained that a number of causes may account for the absence of an immediate body search of a suspected offender in any particular arrest. The most obvious is lack of proper training on the part of the arresting officer or officers. It could also happen that the arresting officers may conclude that the offender poses no danger, and that it would be best to defer to a later time a more thorough body search. What is significant is that petitioner was caught red-handed in possession of the prohibited item.
Further, the CA was correct in holding that the chain of custody of the seized illicit drugs remained unbroken, and that no proof was adduced to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drugs were compromised. While Police Officer (PO) Jeffrey Ditablan recalled the marking on the seized item to be "MMGT" or "MMTG," PO Froilan Quisquino correctly testified that the item was marked "MTG." However, any seeming inconsistency on this point would refer to a minor detail and would not in any way destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, slight clashing statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimony.[5]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the 15 September 2011 Decision and 22 December 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32598 are hereby AFFIRMED.
�Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Ramon A. Cruz; rollo, pp. 29-41, 42-43.[2] Docketed as Crim. Case No. 07-1020; id. at 61-62.
[3] People v. Jampas, G.R. No. 177766, 17 July 2009, 593 SCRA 241.
[4] G.R. No. 97959, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 261.
[5] People v. Tanilon, G.R. No. 94569, 11 May 1993, 221 SCRA 671.