G.R. No. 233200 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CARMELO CARPIO Y TARROZA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , all the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds that accused in: 1. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20837 GUILTY beyond reasonable for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and hereby sentences him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUDNRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 500,000.00) without subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency. 2. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 20838 GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of 12 YEARS AND 1 DAY to 14 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENTS and pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP300,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. SO ORDERED . [10] The RTC observed that the testimony of SPO1 Rivera established the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs; and that the accused-appellant's defense of denial did not overcome the positive testimonies of the Prosecution's witnesses and other evidence like the marked money and the two sachets of shabu seized from him. [11] Decision of the CA On appeal, the accused-appellant contended that the police officers had blatantly disregarded the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; that the Prosecution did not establish the identity of the sachets of shabu with moral certainty considering that SPO1 Rivera had immediately pocketed the sachets of shabu even without marking them; that the marking had been done only at the police station; and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty did not apply because the officers had not observed the statutory safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. On April 7, 2017, the CA promulgated the assailed decision affirming the convictions. [12] It ruled that the testimony of SPO1 Rivera narrating in detail the entrapment operation had demonstrated that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized were preserved; that marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team had substantially complied with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; that the Prosecution's witnesses deserved full faith and credit in the absence of proof of their ill-motive and bad faith; and that the accused belatedly raised the issue surrounding the chain of custody. Issue The accused-appellant presents the following grounds in support of his appeal, [13] to wit: I Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was blatantly disregarded. There was failure of the arresting team to establish the very first link in the chain of custody and there was failure to preserve the integrity of the alleged items seized. II The corpus delicti was not established with moral certainty. [14] The accused-appellant argues that the apprehending officers did not preserve the integrity of the seized contraband; that SPO1 Rivera did not testify that the seized items had been properly marked immediately after having received them; that the marking had not been made in presence of the accused-appellant; that the apprehendin