April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 189352 : April 11, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO RAMOS Y MAGDALENA.
G.R. No. 189352 � (People of the Philippines v. Romeo Ramos y Magdalena). � We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Romeo Ramos y Magdalena (appellant), from the June 23, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03159.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its January 3, 2008 decision,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, convicted the appellant of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.[3] It believed the straightforward testimony of Police Officer 1 (PO1) Leonardo Cipriano, the poseur-buyer and arresting officer who was part of the police team that conducted the buy-bust operation, and rejected the appellant's self-serving defenses of denial and police frame-up. The RTC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate review, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in handling the seized drug; specifically, PO1 Cipriano failed to mark, inventory and photograph the seized item at the time of the arrest.
The CA rejected the appellant's argument for having been raised for the first time on appeal. It gave full respect to the RTC's calibration of the witnesses, and affirmed in toto the RTC's decision.[4]
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal.
We find no reason lo reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[5]
In this case, PO1 Cipriano positively identified the appellant as the seller of the seized drug, weighing 0.016 gram, which was examined by Police Inspector Elisa G. Reyes, a Forensic Chemist, and found to be methylamphelamine hydrochloride or shabu. The appellant failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO1 Cipriano was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs.[6] A bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Cipriano of the appellant as the person who sold him the shabu.
The prosecution established the chain of custody through the following links: (1) PO1 Cipriano marked the seized sachet with "RMR," the appellant's initials;[7] (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized item followed; (3) the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory received the request and the marked item seized:[8] (4) the Final Chemistry Report confirmed that the marked item seized from the appellant was methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu;[9] and (5) the marked item was offered in evidence as Exhibit "B."
We agree with the CA's observation that the appellant questioned the proper chain of custody of the seized drugs only when he appealed his conviction. Not once did he raise this defense before the RTC.[10] In any case, mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items can be shown to have been properly preserved and safeguarded.[11] In this case, the prosecution has shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved; its identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished.cralaw
Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity involved, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. RA 9346[12] proscribes the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the lower courts correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the June 23, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03159 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Andrew B. Reyes. Jr. and Fernanda Lampas Peralta; rollo, pp. 2-13.[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 05-240529; CA rollo, pp. 10-14.
[3] The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011.
[6] People of the Philippines v. Reynald dela Cruz y. Libantocia, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011.
[7] TSN, August 7, 2006, p. 8.
[8] Records, p. 52.
[9] Id. at 51.
[10] People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Amansec y Dona, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011.
[11] People of the Philippines v. Asmad Bara y Asmad, G.R. No. 184808, November 14, 2011.
[12] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.