April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 200523 : April 25, 2012]
RENATO LIBRIAS Y CERIOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 200523 (Renato Librias y Cerios v. People of the Philippines) - We resolve the petition under Rule 45 filed by accused Renato Librias y Cerios (petitioner) from the 12 October 2011 Decision and 6 February 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33007.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its 19 November 2009 Decision,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 123, convicted petitioner of violating Section 11, Article II, of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Petitioner was allegedly arrested in flagrante delicto while in possession of five plastic sachets of shabu. The RTC found that, based on the evidence presented, the following elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were established: (1) the accused was in possession of a prohibited drug; (2) the possession was without license or authority of law; and (3) the accused has knowledge or was aware of his possession of the prohibited drug. The RTC further ruled that the testimony of the arresting officer deserved faith and credence. The integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs was also upheld by the trial court. Petitioner was then sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve years and one day as minimum to thirteen years and six months as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA ruled that petitioner's weak defense of denial was unable to rebut the testimony and evidence of the prosecution. Petitioner was also unable to adduce clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. The appellate court further held that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were too minor to adversely affect their credibility. Moreover, the chain of custody of the subject drugs was not shown to have been broken.
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC, less so in the present case wherein the said findings were affirmed by the CA.
Petitioner claims that the CA erred in giving weight to the testimony of the arresting officer, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Roberto Cahilig. He claims that the testimony of PO3 Cahilig was not corroborated as his companion at the time was not presented in court. Moreover, the act of talking with another person was not a criminal offense to justify the warrantless arrest and search done to petitioner. However, petitioner was arrested for' being caught in flagrante delicto while in possession of five plastic sachets of shabu. Moreover, there is no rule of evidence that requires the presentation of a specific or minimum number of witnesses to sustain a conviction for a violation of the law against dangerous drugs. It is the prosecuting fiscal's prerogative to determine who or how many witnesses are to be presented in order to establish the quantum of proof necessary for conviction. The non-presentation of corroborative witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
Petitioner further argues that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the allegedly confiscated drugs, as there was no physical inventory of the drugs and no photographs taken thereof at the time of confiscation. Contrary to petitioner's contention, and as found by the RTC, the prosecution witness explained that the drugs were not marked at the time they were seized because a commotion was about to occur in the area. This can be considered as a justifiable reason for the failure to immediately conduct an inventory of the seized goods and to photograph and mark them. Further, there was no sufficient evidence proffered by petitioner to prove or show that the evidence had been tampered with.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the 12 October 2011 Decision and 6 February 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33007 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.[2] Penned by Judge Edmundo T. Acuna; docketed as Crim. Case No. C-80711.
[3] See People v. Navaja, G.R. No. 104044, 30 March 1993, 220 SCRA 624.
[4] Id.
