November 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > November 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 193380 : November 15, 2010] ROLANDO PADAY, ET AL. V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 193380 : November 15, 2010]
ROLANDO PADAY, ET AL. V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 193380 (Rolando Paday, et al. v. People of the Philippines). � This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated January 14, 2010 and the Resolution dated August 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 02743, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rolando Paclay, et al."
Petitioner Rolando Paclay was indicted for possession and control of one (1) small brick of marijuana resin, weighing 251.33 grams, in violation of Section II, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Petitioners Gonzales Bagtang and Mario Palangdao, on the other hand, were indicted for the sale and distribution of one (1) brick of marijuana resin, weighing 229.16 grams, in violation of the same law. The cases were filed and docketed as Criminal Cases No. 23374-R and No. 23375-R, respectively, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61. Baguio City.
Upon arraignment, petitioners pled "not guilty." After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented SPO4 Arthur Lucas, SPO3 Romeo Abordo, and SPO2 Cabily Agbayani, who testified that they conducted a buy-bust operation to entrap petitioners and, thereafter, arrested them. The petitioners, on the other hand, testified and raised the defenses of denial and alibi.
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision dated January 8, 2007, finding petitioners guilty of possession of dangerous drugs, and sentencing each to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Petitioners appealed to the CA, contending that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the bricks of marijuana resin subject of the criminal cases. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC decision in its January 14, 2010 Decision. It also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in its August 9, 2010 Resolution. Hence, this petition insisting that the chain of custody of the dangerous drug had not been properly established.
We resolve to deny the petition.
The petition suffers from fatal procedural lapses. First, it is noted that petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of appeal. Inasmuch as the penalty imposed was life imprisonment, the appeal should have been brought by notice of appeal to the CA, pursuant to Rule 122, Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court. Second, the verification and the certification against forum shopping appended to the petition were not signed by petitioners and were not notarized. Third, the petition was filed out of time, despite the grant to petitioners of an extension of thirty (30) days from the reglementary date of filing.
On the merits, we fmd that the RTC and the CA did not err in convicting petitioners of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out in the petition, do not devalue the credibility of the said witnesses, who, without a finding of any ill motive on their part, positively identified petitioners as the perpetrators of the crime they committed.[1] It may also be mentioned that the RTC, notwithstanding the non-finding of a conduct of a buy-bust operation, still found petitioners guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and the CA affirmed the conviction. The question of the strict compliance with the chain of custody rule, as laid down in People v. Kamad,[2] becomes inconsequential, considering that the preservation and identity of the physical evidence had been duly proved. Indeed, this Court gives great respect to the factual findings of the RTC, its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, and its resolution grounded on those findings, especially because, as in this case, they have been affirmed'by the CA.[3]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 193380 (Rolando Paday, et al. v. People of the Philippines). � This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated January 14, 2010 and the Resolution dated August 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 02743, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rolando Paclay, et al."
Petitioner Rolando Paclay was indicted for possession and control of one (1) small brick of marijuana resin, weighing 251.33 grams, in violation of Section II, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Petitioners Gonzales Bagtang and Mario Palangdao, on the other hand, were indicted for the sale and distribution of one (1) brick of marijuana resin, weighing 229.16 grams, in violation of the same law. The cases were filed and docketed as Criminal Cases No. 23374-R and No. 23375-R, respectively, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61. Baguio City.
Upon arraignment, petitioners pled "not guilty." After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented SPO4 Arthur Lucas, SPO3 Romeo Abordo, and SPO2 Cabily Agbayani, who testified that they conducted a buy-bust operation to entrap petitioners and, thereafter, arrested them. The petitioners, on the other hand, testified and raised the defenses of denial and alibi.
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision dated January 8, 2007, finding petitioners guilty of possession of dangerous drugs, and sentencing each to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Petitioners appealed to the CA, contending that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the bricks of marijuana resin subject of the criminal cases. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC decision in its January 14, 2010 Decision. It also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in its August 9, 2010 Resolution. Hence, this petition insisting that the chain of custody of the dangerous drug had not been properly established.
We resolve to deny the petition.
The petition suffers from fatal procedural lapses. First, it is noted that petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of appeal. Inasmuch as the penalty imposed was life imprisonment, the appeal should have been brought by notice of appeal to the CA, pursuant to Rule 122, Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court. Second, the verification and the certification against forum shopping appended to the petition were not signed by petitioners and were not notarized. Third, the petition was filed out of time, despite the grant to petitioners of an extension of thirty (30) days from the reglementary date of filing.
On the merits, we fmd that the RTC and the CA did not err in convicting petitioners of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out in the petition, do not devalue the credibility of the said witnesses, who, without a finding of any ill motive on their part, positively identified petitioners as the perpetrators of the crime they committed.[1] It may also be mentioned that the RTC, notwithstanding the non-finding of a conduct of a buy-bust operation, still found petitioners guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and the CA affirmed the conviction. The question of the strict compliance with the chain of custody rule, as laid down in People v. Kamad,[2] becomes inconsequential, considering that the preservation and identity of the physical evidence had been duly proved. Indeed, this Court gives great respect to the factual findings of the RTC, its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, and its resolution grounded on those findings, especially because, as in this case, they have been affirmed'by the CA.[3]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 386, 390.
[2] G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295.
[3] People v. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 246, 253.
