Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > April 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 191072 : April 11, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAMES TALATO Y TORRES A.K.A. "JAMES" :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 April 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 191072 - (People of the Philippines v. James Talato y Torres a.k.a. "James"). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused James Talato y Torres a.k.a. "James" (appellant), from the November 26, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03618.^[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its August 8, 2008 joint decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 164, convicted the appellant of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.^[3] Relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, the RTC gave full credence to the open court narrations of prosecution witnesses Police Officer (PO) 3 Dennis Ordame, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Bernardo Pascua, Jr., and PO2 Landito Relucio on the August 12, 2004 buy-bust operation conducted against the appellant, coupled by the stipulated testimony of forensic chemist P/Insp. Vivian C. Sumobay confirming the seized drug as methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. It disbelieved the appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up for being self-serving. 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 RTC failed to appreciate his corroborated defense of denial, and that the police officers failed to inventory and photograph the seized item at the time of the arrest, in violation of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.^[4]

The CA gave full respect to the RTC's appreciation of the witnesses' testimonies and thereby affirmed in toto the RTC's joint decision. In rejecting the appellant's arguments, the CA noted that denial is a weak defense against the police officers' positive declarations; that there is evidence showing that the police officers prepared the required inventory; that the absence of a photograph is not fatal since the prosecution satisfactorily established the integrity and identity of the seized drug; and that the alleged lapses in the safekeeping of the seized drug cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.^[5] 

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling  

We dismiss the appeal. 

We find no reason to 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.^[6]  PO3 Ordame positively identified the appellant as the seller of the seized drug, weighing 0.07 gram, which was examined by P/Insp. Sumobay and found to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. As against PO3 Ordame's positive identification of the appellant, the latter's denial is perceptibly self-serving and has little weight in law. In the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should stand.^[7] 

As the CA did, we reject the appellant's argument that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 on the inventory and photograph of the seized drug. The appellant belatedly raised this argument; it cannot be presented and appreciated for the first time on appeal.^[8]  At any rate, even if considered, we consider this submission unmeritorious. The police officers complied with the inventory procedure, evidenced by the appellant's own signature.^[9] As to the absence of a photograph of the appellant with the seized item, we have repeatedly held that 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.^[10]

The records show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized  shabu were duly preserved and safeguarded. PO3 Ordame marked the seized plastic sachet with "DJO," his initials.^[11] An inventory was prepared in the presence of the appellant.^[12] A request for laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachet followed.^[13] PO3 Ordame, PO2 Relucio, and PO2 Felino Sumaoang, a buy-bust team member, brought the seized item to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame.^[14] P/Insp. Sumobay acknowledged receipt of the request and the marked item seized.^[15] Chemistry Report No. D-324-04 on the plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, weighing 0.07 gram.^[16] The marked item was offered in evidence as Exhibit "K."

Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 provides the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 for the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity involved. RA 9346^[17]  prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the November 26, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03618 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Cour

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Magdangal M. de Leon: rollo, pp. 2-15. 

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 13673-D: CA rollo, pp. 14-19. 

^[3] The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 

^[4] CA rollo, pp. 24-42. 

^[5] Supra note 1. 

^[6] People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011. 

^[7] People of the Philippines v. Arnold Castro y Yanga, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011. 

^[8] See People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Amansec y Dona, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011. See also People of the Philippines v. Reynold dela Cruz y Libantocia, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011. 

^[9] Exhibit "1-3": Records, p. 80. 

^[10] People of the Philippines v. Asmad Bara y Asmad, G.R. No. 184808, November 14, 2011. 

^[11] TSN, November 8, 2004, pp. 3-33. 

^[12] Exhibit "I." id. at 80. 

^[13] Exhibit "C." id. at 76. 

^[14] Supra note 11. 

^[15] Order dated November 7, 2004; Records, p. 35. 

^[16] Exhibit "L", id. at 81. 

^[17] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.