April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 189837 : April 11, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALBERT GARCIA Y CARRASCA
G.R. No. 189837 - (People of the Philippines v. Albert Garcia y Carrasca). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Albert Garcia y Carrasca (appellant), from the August 27, 2009 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03042.
The RTC Ruling
In its August 23, 2007 decision,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Branch 9, convicted the appellant of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.[3] The RTC gave credence to the positive testimony of Police Officer (PO) 2 Efren L. Cara, the poseur-buyer, as corroborated by PO3 Rolando C. Navarrete, a back-up member of the buy-bust team. It disregarded the appellant's defense of denial for being unsubstantiated. It sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate review, the appellant assailed the RTC's calibration of the witnesses, pointing to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and the non-presentation of the informant at the trial.[4]
The CA rejected the appellant's arguments, noting that the inconsistencies cited by the appellant referred only to minor matters and that the presentation of the informant in court was not an indispensable requisite to the successful prosecution of drug cases.[5]
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
In his supplemental brief, the appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs; that the police officers failed to comply with the prescribed procedure in the inventory of seized drugs under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.[6]
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, more so in the present case where the said findings were 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.[7] In this case, PO2 Cara and PO3 Navarrete positively identified the appellant as the seller of the seized drug, weighing 0.024 gram, which was examined by Police Senior Inspector Nellson C. Sta. Maria, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Forensic Chemist, and found to be methyl amphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Aside from the presumption that the police officers performed their duties in a regular manner, there is no showing that they had any ill motive in arresting the appellant. Thus, the appellant's bare denial crumbles in the face of the positive declarations of PO2 Cara and PO3 Navarrete pointing to the appellant as the person who sold the shabu.[8]
We find that it is already too late in the day for the appellant to question the police officers� alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Not once did he raise this argument before the RTC and the CA. This argument cannot be raised for the first time in this final review.[9]
At any rate, 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 prosecution has shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved through the following links: (1) PO2 Cara marked the seized plastic sachet with "ELC," his initials;[11] (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachet followed;[12] (3) the PNP Crime Laboratory received the request and the marked item seized; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-381-2004 or the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet proved positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, weighing 0.024 gram;[13] and (5) the marked item was offered in evidence as Exhibit "D."
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 prescribes 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. Since RA 9346[14] prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the lower courts correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the August 27, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03042 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Francisco P. Acosta; rollo, pp. 2-13.[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 3I93-M-04:CA rollo, pp. 19-23.
[3] The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 29-51.
[5] Supra note 1.
[6] Rollo, pp. 28-34.
[7] People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011.
[8] Bug-atan v. People, G.R. No. 175195, September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 537, 554.
[9] See People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Amansec y Dona, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011. See also People of the Philippines v. Reynald de la Cruz y Libantocia, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011.
[10] People of the Philippines v. Asmad Bara y Asmad, G.R. No. 184808, November 14, 2011.
[11] TSN, July 12, 2005, p. 17; TSN, January 25, 2006, p.11.
[12] Records, p. 64.
[13] Id. at 65.
[14] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.