Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83239:57239&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:53:16+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 201725, July 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA, Accused-Appellant.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04053 affirming the Decision2 in Criminal Case No. Q-04-129946 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 of Quezon City. The RTC Decision found Joy Alcala y Novilla (accused) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to said charge.5 Trial thereafter ensued.
Around 5 o’clock in the afternoon of September 30, 2004, a female informant came to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force of the Central Police District, Station 11, Quezon City, to report the illegal drug activities of a certain alias Joy in the vicinity of Lantana St., Barangay Immaculate Conception, Cubao, Quezon City. Thereupon, P/Insp. Erwin Guevarra formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO1 Mario Abong, PO2 Anthony Pamiliar, PO3 Jose Castuciano, PO2 Jonathan Caranza and PO2 Erwin Bautista, who was designated as poseur buyer. The team was briefed on the details of the buy-bust operation against alias Joy and PO2 Bautista was given buy-bust money, a one hundred peso bill, which he marked with his initials “EB”. Thereafter, a pre-operation report was prepared.
Past 6:00 p.m. of the same day, the team arrived at the target area. The informant and Bautista sought alias Joy, who was later identified as appellant, Joy Alcala. The rest of the operatives followed at a distance and positioned themselves according to their plan. Along Lantana St., the informant saw and approached appellant. He introduced PO2 Bautista as a buyer of shabu. Then, appellant asked him, “Iiskor kayo, magkano?” PO2 Bautista replied “piso lang”, meaning P100.00 worth of shabu. Appellant took a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from the right front pocket of her pants and then asked for payment. PO2 Bautista handed her the marked money and then took the plastic sachet from appellant. Thereafter, PO2 Bautista lighted a cigarette, the pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated. The other members of the team converged on the scene and arrested appellant. Appellant was asked to empty her pockets, after which, the buy bust money was recovered.
Appellant was brought to the police station. Thereat, the confiscated plastic sachet was marked by PO2 Bautista with the letters “EB-JA”. He then and turned it over to the duty desk officer, PO3 Castuciano, who prepared the standard request for laboratory examination. The specimen and the request were brought by PO2 Pamiliar to the PNP Crime Laboratory. After a qualitative examination conducted by forensic chemist, Victor Calub Drapete, it was reported that the contents of the plastic sachet EB-JA proved positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JOY ALCALA y NOVILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) PESOS.
Upon elevation of this case before this Court, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it will no longer file its supplemental brief and, instead, will adopt all the arguments in its brief filed before the CA.16 While in the Supplemental Brief17 filed by accused through the Public Attorney’s Office, she raises the issue that the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused notwithstanding the prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of custody and integrity of the alleged seized illegal drugs for failure to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Accordingly, it is her contention that the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused of the alleged sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
Upon perusal of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, less so in the present case, in which its findings were affirmed by the CA. It is worthy to mention that, in addition to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty, the court a quo was in the best position to weigh the evidence presented during trial and ascertain the credibility of the police officers who testified as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation and in preserving the integrity of the seized illegal drug.
Certainly, based on the evidence in record, the prosecution had indeed established that there was a buy-bust operation22 conducted, showing that accused-appellant sold and delivered the shabu for P100.00 to PO2 Bautista, the poseur-buyer. PO2 Bautista himself testified that there was an actual exchange of the marked-money and the prohibited drug. Likewise, accused was fully aware that what she was selling was illegal and prohibited when she asked PO2 Bautista “iiskor kayo, magkano?” Thereafter, the corpus delicti or the subject drug was seized, marked, and subsequently identified as a prohibited drug. Taken collectively, the illegal sale of dangerous drugs by accused-appellant was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.
From the testimonies of the police officers in the case at bench, the prosecution established that they had custody of the drug seized from the accused from the moment she was arrested, during the time she was transported to the police station, and up to the time the drug was submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The same witnesses also identified the seized drug with certainty when this was presented in court. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court. It is therefore safe to conclude that, to the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court. This fact was further bolstered by the stipulations entered into between the parties as to the testimony of forensic chemist, P/Insp. Victor Drapete.30 In other words, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence against accused.
To reiterate, although this Court finds that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Article II, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drug seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. As correctly found by the appellate court, the drug confiscated from the accused was properly accounted for and forthrightly submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for its extensive examination. The CA further ruled that nothing invited the suspicion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized articles were jeopardized.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04053 dated 13 June 2011, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
1Rollo, pp. 2-15; Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
2 Records, pp. 103-108; Penned by Presiding Judge Severino B. De Castro, Jr..
3 Records, pp. 1-2; Information dated 4 October 2004.
5 Id. at 21; Certificate of Arraignment dated 3 January 2005.
6 As testified to by accused-appellant during her direct examination conducted on 3 March 2008. TSN dated 3 March 2008, p. 34.
7Rollo, pp. 4-6; CA Decision dated 13 June 2011.
10 Id. at 108 citing People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762 (1999).
11 Id. at 107 citing People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740 (2001).
12Rollo, pp. 8-9; CA Decision dated 13 June 2011.
13 Id. at 10-13 citing People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, 603 Phil. 510; People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 180508, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 472; and People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 697.
14 Id. at 13 citing People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202; and People v. Aure, G.R. No. 185163, 17 January 2011, 639 SCRA 570.
15 Id. at 13-14 citing People v. Buluran, 382 Phil. 364 (2000).
16 Id. (no pagination, should be pages 43-44); Resolution dated 23 January 2013.
18People v. Lardizabal, G.R. No. 89113, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 320, 329.
19People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004); Chan v. Formaran, III et al., 572 Phil. 118, 132-133 (2008).
20People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 215.
21People v. Andres, G. R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 608 citing People v. Serrano, G. R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 327.
23People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing People v. Lamado, G. R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v. Remerata, G. R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
24People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 191392, 14 March 2011, 645 SCRA 300, 306 citing People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, 24 February 2010, 613 SCRA 556, and People v. De Leon, supra note 22 at 136.
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
26Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
27People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 186390, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783, 795.
28People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583.
29People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 91-92.
30Rollo, p. 12; CA Decision dated 13 June 2011.
31Zalameda v. People, G. R. No. 183656, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 556.

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