Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82962:56865&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:45:15+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 206770, April 02, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. NOEL PRAJES AND ALIPA MALA, Accused–Appellants.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. NOEL PRAJES AND ALIPA MALA, Accused–Appellants.
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. CEB CR–HC No. 00462, which affirmed the Decision2 dated June 29, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 15, finding Noel Prajes (Prajes) and Alipa Mala (Mala) (accused–appellants) guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
As previously arranged with Sabayton, Prajes met up with Sabayton and SI Tumalon in a makeshift house in Kinasang–an, where Mala later joined them. Since Prajes had not brought with him the illegal drugs to be sold, the group proceeded to his father’s house which was only 15 to 20 meters away from the makeshift house8 and there, SI Tumalon received the illegal drugs from Prajes.
Upon the accused–appellants’ receipt of the buy–bust money, SI Tumalon introduced himself to them as an NBI agent. SI Tumalon made a “missed call” to SA Minguez’s phone, the team’s pre–agreed signal to indicate that the sale had been consummated, and then arrested the accused–appellants.10 Soon thereafter, the other members of the buy–bust team arrived. The accused–appellants were handcuffed and brought to the NBI office, where their photographs and fingerprints were taken.11 At the NBI office, SI Tumalon handed the buy–bust money and three packs of shabu to SI Saavedra, who placed his markings on the packs of shabu. SI Saavedra also prepared the letter–request for examination of the illegal drugs, which he personally turned over to Chemist Rommel Paglinawan12 of the Forensic Chemistry Section, Central Visayas Regional Office of the NBI. A laboratory examination of the three packs sold by the accused–appellants to SI Tumalon confirmed that the specimen contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. An ultraviolet examination performed by the NBI also confirmed the presence of fluorescent powder on the accused–appellants’ hands.
The accused–appellants denied the charge against them. Prajes claimed that at about 4:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, he was sleeping at his house in Kinasang–an when a neighbor, Renante Paradero (Paradero), woke him up to inform him that some persons were looking for him. He then proceeded to Paradero’s house and there saw Sabayton, whom he had previously met in a “sniffing session” and who had called him up at around 1:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002 for the purchase of shabu. Sabayton was with two companions, who inquired from Prajes about the purchase. Prajes, Sabayton and his two companions then proceeded to the house of Prajes’ father, where Prajes received the drugs from a person sent by a certain “Alex”. Prajes handed the pack of shabu to Sabayton, then was immediately handcuffed by SI Tumalon. Sabayton hit Prajes’ handcuffed right hand with money that was brought by the buy–bust team. Thereafter, Prajes was taken to the NBI Office.
On June 29, 2004, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 15, rendered a Decision16 finding the accused–appellants guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and sentencing them to each suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay fine of P500,000.00.17 Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the accused–appellants appealed to the CA.
In a Decision18 dated May 30, 2012, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. The appellate court found no credence in the denials that were posed by the accused–appellants. Instead, it found credible the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs, as well as its showing that there was sufficient compliance by the NBI operatives with the rule on chain of custody.
Hence, the present appeal wherein the accused–appellants insist on the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused–appellants also question the subject drugs’ identity and the NBI’s observance of the rule on the chain of custody. They argue that it was unclear as to who actually marked the subject packs of shabu, and that there were no photographs and physical inventory of the seized items, even when the same are required under the law.
At the outset, the Court reiterates the settled rule that “the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, x x x, said findings are generally binding upon us[,]”19 save in settled exceptions such as: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.20 Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case does not fall under any of these exceptions. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings, and consequent rulings, of the trial and appellate courts.
Even the failure of the prosecution to present a physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs did not render inadmissible the packs of shabu that were seized from the accused–appellants, especially as we consider that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs did not appear to have been compromised. This was similar with the Court’s ruling in People v. Torres27 and Ambre v. People,28 wherein we affirmed the conviction of the accused notwithstanding some deviations from the required procedure on physical inventory and photographs of the seized items.
As against the accused–appellants’ denial, an inherently weak defense, the evidence presented by the prosecution deserves credence. The following elements of illegal sale of shabu were sufficiently established during the trial: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.29 During a planned buy–bust operation, SI Tumalon served as a poseur–buyer and was able to successfully purchase packs of shabu weighing 195 grams, more or less, from the accused–appellants for a total consideration of P180,000.00. The payment was handed to the accused–appellants by SI Tumalon. An examination conducted by the Forensic Chemistry Section, Central Visayas Regional Office, NBI in Capitol Site, Cebu City, confirmed that the packs contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.30 There was nothing on record which would indicate that the substance purchased by SI Tumalon from the accused–appellants during the buy–bust operation was different from the subject of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section’s examination, and that which was eventually presented by the prosecution in court to establish their case against the accused–appellants.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. CEB CR–HC No. 00462 is AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; rollo, pp. 3–19.
2 Issued by Presiding Judge Fortunato M. De Gracia, Jr., CA rollo, pp. 48–54.
19 People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 64–65.
20People v. Omictin, G.R. No. 188130, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 611, 619, citing Dueñas v. Guce–Africa, G.R. No. 165679, October 5, 2009, 603 SCRA 11, 20–21.
21People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 260, 262.
22 People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 357, 368, citing Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 443.
23People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 452.
26 CA rollo, p. 50.
28 G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 552.
29People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.