THIRD DIVISION
|
ARNEL BALARBAR y BIASORA, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 187483
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: April 14,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1]
dated October 28, 2008 and its Resolution[2]
dated April 2, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR No. 31116. The assailed Decision affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)[3]
dated July 11, 2007, convicting petitioner Arnel B. Balarbar of Violation of
Article II, Section 11, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165; while the assailed Resolution
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The
case arose from the following facts:
On
May 26, 2005, Police Officer (PO)1 Ernesto Aquino, Senior Police Officer (SPO)2
Enrique Columbino, PO2 Jesus Gerald Manaois, and PO2 Roberto de Vera of the
Dagupan City Police Station, assigned at the Intelligence and City Anti-Illegal
Drug Special Operation Task Force, were ordered to conduct a surveillance at the
Muslim Area, Bonuan, Tondaligan, Dagupan City, reputed as a haven of drug
pushers and users. When they arrived at the site at around 2:30 p.m., PO2
Manaois and PO2 Aquino saw petitioner coming out from the house of a certain
Untah, a well-known drug pusher. PO2 Aquino asked petitioner, “Taga saan ka brod?” but the latter
continued to walk and pretended not to hear the question. As the two police
officers were following him, petitioner dropped something from his hands, which,
after verification, turned out to be a plastic sachet of shabu. PO2 Manaois held petitioner’s hand and asked him if the
plastic sachet belonged to him, and he answered in the negative. After
informing petitioner of his constitutional rights, the arresting officers
brought him to the police station and indorsed him to the police investigator.[4]
The confiscation receipt was prepared
but petitioner refused to sign it. PO2 Manaois and PO2 Aquino marked the
confiscated plastic sachet of shabu and submitted the same to the crime
laboratory for examination. The examination yielded positive results for shabu.[5]
Petitioner was thus charged in an Information for Violation of Article II,
Section 11, R.A. No. 9165 for having in his possession, custody and control
shabu contained in a small heat-sealed plastic sachet weighing more or less
0.10 gram.[6] Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded “not
guilty.”
For his part, petitioner set up the
defense of denial and frame-up. He explained that on that fateful afternoon, he
was looking for his friends when suddenly, the police officers approached him
and pointed at him as the owner of the plastic sachet of shabu that they picked up from the street.[7]
After trial on the merits, the RTC
found petitioner guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine of P300,000.00. Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the CA. Hence, the instant petition on the sole issue
of:
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FINDING HEREIN PETITIONER
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.[8]
Petitioner
questions his conviction primarily because the prosecution allegedly failed to
establish the identity of the confiscated plastic sachet of shabu.
We find no reason to reverse petitioner’s
conviction. Hence, we affirm but with modification on the penalty imposed.
When this Court is asked to go over
the evidence presented by the parties and to analyze, assess and weigh the same
to ascertain if the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, was
correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and,
eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the
Court will, ordinarily, demur. When
the trial court’s factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court,
said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[9]
We would like to stress that
non-compliance with the requirements set forth in R.A. No. 9165 on the custody
and disposition of confiscated or seized drugs, under justifiable grounds,
shall not render void and invalid the seizures and custody of said items as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officers.[10]
The records show that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from petitioner were properly
preserved and safeguarded. In this case, the plastic sachet of shabu was properly marked before a
letter-request was prepared for the crime laboratory to conduct the
examination. From the time the illegal drug was seized from petitioner until
the time the chemical examination was conducted thereon, its integrity was
preserved. It was not shown to have been
contaminated in any manner. Its
identity, quantity and quality remained untarnished, and was sufficiently
established.[11] Besides, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or
proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the evidence was tampered or
meddled with to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of
exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly
discharged their duties.[12]
Hence, we agree with the trial court,
as affirmed by the CA, that the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable
doubt that petitioner is guilty of Violation of Article II, Section 11 of R.A. No.
9165, having knowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of shabu without legal authority at the
time he was caught.[13] The Court, however, modifies the penalty
imposed. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance and in
accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be meted the
indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum.[14] The
Court affirms the P300,000.00 fine imposed by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the October 28, 2008 Decision and the April 2, 2009
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31116, with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Arnel B.
Balarbar should be meted the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) years and ONE
(1) day as minimum to FOURTEEN (14)
years and EIGHT (8) months as
maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, with Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan Castillo and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 65-71.
[2]
[3] Branch 44,
[4] Rollo, pp. 66-67.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 397, 412-413.
[10] People
v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179036,
[11]
[12] People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 174778, October 2, 2007, 534 SCRA 552.
[13] People
v. Dilao, G.R. No. 170359,
[14] People
v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151,