G.R. No. 189277 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Ricardo Remigio is found guilty of the offense charged in the Informations and is sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua in Criminal Case No. 03-25497. In Criminal case No. 03-25498, accused Ricardo Remigio is sentenced to suffer an Imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of P300,000.00 as provided for under Section 11, Par. (3) [o]f RA 9165. As amended. [46] Upon appeal, the accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution was able to prove the requisites of a buy-bust operation. [47] He doubted the entrapment operation as there was already an existing warrant of arrest against him. [48] Further, he emphasized the failure of the prosecution to establish the corpus delicti of the case as the five plastic sachets allegedly containing dangerous drug were not presented in court. What were presented were only pictures which do not prove that those in the pictures were the same ones tested at the forensic laboratory. [49] Finally, he questioned the non-adherence to the procedures to establish the chain of custody of evidence such as the marking of the five sachets of confiscated drugs at the time and in the place where the accused was arrested. [50] The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, stressed the legality of a buy-bust operation. [51] It relied on the presumption of regularity of performance of police officers in fulfilling their duties, [52] and on the prosecutions proof of all the elements of illegal sale of shabu . [53] After review, the CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court with modification on the penalty imposed. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the decision subject of the present appeal is hereby AFFIRMED save for a modification in the penalty imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). [54] The appellate court gave great weight on the findings of facts of the trial court and full credit to the presumption of regularity of performance of the arresting officer Ramos. It discredited the argument of the defense of frame-up and upheld the presence of the requisites to prove illegal sale of dangerous drugs. [55] No weight was given by the CA to the argument about non-compliance with the procedures laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to establish the chain of custody of evidence ruling that there was no taint in the integrity of the evidentiary value of the seized items. [56] This appeal is moored on the contention about the break in the chain of custody and the absence of identification of illegal drugs. [57] Appellant capitalizes on the non-marking of the sachets allegedly recovered from his wallet and compartment of his motorcycle, the non-preparation of an inventory report, the absence of photographs of the arrest, and non-presentation of the actual dangero