Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 188605 - (People of the Philippines v. Michael Caliso y Vicente).- We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Michael Caliso y Vicente (appellant), from the 11 November 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR.-HC No. 02893.^[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its 22 February 2007 Decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276, convicted appellant of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The RTC gave credence to the testimony of the arresting officers who conducted the buy-bust operation against appellant. Further, it disregarded his defense of denial and alibi, for being "ludicrous� and unsubstantiated. Hence, the RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and twelve years for possession of dangerous drugs.

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC. The CA agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the testimony of the arresting officers, and stated that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should be accorded in favor of the officers. The CA, however, modified the penalty imposed upon appellant as follows: for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it imposed life imprisonment plus a fine of P500,000; and for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, six years and one day to fourteen years, eight months, and one day, plus a fine of P300,000.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling

We dismiss 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 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.

In his assignment of errors, appellant contends that the criminal case should have been dismissed, as there was no prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, in violation of Section 86 of R.A. 9165. On this score, the CA correctly found that, at the time of the buy-bust operation, or on 29 July 2002, the said Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 was not yet wholly effective.^[3] Even assuming that the provision already was effective, jurisprudence has been consistent in stating that the failure to comply with Section 86 does not make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal, nor does it render evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.^[4]

As to the physical science report finding the seized evidence positive for dangerous drugs, appellant claims that it is hearsay since the forensic chemist was not presented. However, it is worth noting that the testimony of the forensic chemist was dispensed with after both parties stipulated on the due execution and genuineness of the lab report. The report stated that the seized evidence had been found positive for the presence of dangerous drugs.^[5] In any case, it has been held that a forensic chemist is a public officer and, as such, his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and duties. Under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated and are an exception to the hearsay rule.^[6]

Finally, the issue of alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as claimed by appellant, deserves scant weight. These are minor inconsistencies which do not weaken the positive identification of the accused and the illegal acts. Further, the alleged noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal, as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team,^[7]  as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.^[8] In this case, the CA correctly found that the chain of custody from the time the evidence was seized until they were forwarded to the crime laboratory was clearly established by the prosecution witnesses, and that such chain of custody remained intact.

WHEREFORE, the 11 November 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR.-HC No. 02893 is hereby AFFIRMED. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated additional member in lieu of Perez, J., per S.O. No. 1114)

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 Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Magdangal M. de Leon; rollo, pp. 2-21.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 02-649 and 02-650. CA Rollo, pp. 8-13. 

^[3] See also People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008. 

^[4] People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, 13 December 2010, citing People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019. 23 February 2007, 516 SCRA 621,631-632; People v. Roa, G.R. No. 186134, 6 May 2010. 

^[5] CA Decision, Rollo, p. 15. 

^[6] People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004, citing People v. Uy, G.R. No. 128046, 7 March 2000, 327 SCRA 335. 

^[7] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194. 

^[8] People v. Guiara, G.R. No. 186497, 17 September 2009, 600 SCRA 310.