G.R. No. 229671 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. JOVENCITO MIRANDA Y TIGAS, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and ( b ) in Crim. Case No. 13-907, Miranda was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P400,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. [12] The RTC found that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crimes charged. On the contrary, Miranda failed to overturn the presumption of regularity afforded to police officers, as he only proffered a denial, to prove that the evidence obtained against him were tampered or meddled with. [13] Furthermore, the RTC declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved from the time of their seizure by Encarnacion until their turnover to PSI Sahagun at the PNP crime laboratory. It was shown that Encarnacion marked and inventoried the said items and handed them over to SPO1 Orsua for further investigation. SPO1 Orsua then returned the said items to Encarnacion, who subsequently delivered them to PSI Sahagun for laboratory testing. After examination, the latter revealed that they contained methamphetamine hydrochloride . [14] Aggrieved, Miranda appealed [15] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [16] dated July 29, 2016, the CA affirmed Miranda's conviction for the crimes charged. [17] It held that all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were adequately proven, given that: (a) an illegal sale of shabu , a dangerous drug, actually took place during a valid buy-bust operation; (b) Miranda was positively identified as the seller of the said shabu ; and (c) both the sachet of shabu and buy-bust money were presented and duly identified in open court as the same items recovered from Miranda. It also ruled that Miranda had no right to possess the other sachet of shabu incidentally recovered from him during his arrest. [18] Moreover, the CA declared that the police officers - notwithstanding their failure to immediately mark, inventory, and photograph the seized items at the place of arrest - substantially complied with the chain of custody rule, as it was shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items were preserved. It added that the non-presentation of PSI Sahagun's testimony, as well as the use of Miranda's alias in marking the seized items ( i.e ., "THUNDER" and "THUNDER-1"), neither affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Besides, the marking, inventory, and photography of the items were witnessed by a barangay kagawad , which thus belied any incidents of tampering or switching of evidence. [19] Hence, this appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Miranda's