Paner v. People (G.R. No. 230535. Aug. 14, 2017)
CASE DIGEST: [G.R. No. 230535, August 14, 2017]. FERDINAND PANER Y SAN PEDRO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
FACTS: The accused questions his conviction of the crime of illegal possession of shabu. He avers that the prosecution failed to establish the commission of the crime. He argues that no person would dare to engage in illegal drug activities in public view and that the person who received the specimen in the crime laboratory, as well as the evidence custodian, police investigator, and the court employee who received the evidence, should be presented as witnesses.
ISSUE: Should his conviction be reversed?
HELD: No, his conviction should not be reversed.
All the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs have been established in this case, to wit: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.
Finally, the failure to inventory and photograph the seized item in the presence of the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, as well as any elected public official will not result in the acquittal of petitioner. Their presence is not one of the elements of the crime. As correctly held by the CA, their absence "is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible, x x x [W]hat is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of guilt of the accused."
SUGGESTED READINGS:
ISSUE: Should his conviction be reversed?
HELD: No, his conviction should not be reversed.
All the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs have been established in this case, to wit: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.
In this case, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals were both convinced that the prosecution had sufficiently shown that petitioner was in possession of shabu when he was apprehended by the police officers. This conclusion of the courts below is binding on the Supreme Court.
Notably, the issues presented by petitioner are mere rehash of his arguments before the courts below. More importantly, there is no merit in his contention that no person would dare to engage in illegal drug activities in public view "especially in the light of the court's observation that of late, drug pushers have turned more daring and defiant in the conduct of their illegal activities."
Petitioner's contention that the person who received the specimen in the crime laboratory, as well as the evidence custodian, police investigator, and the court employee who received the evidence, should be presented as witnesses, fails to persuade. "It is not necessary to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drug to testify in court. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to properly identify the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. The non-presentation as witnesses of the evidence custodian and the officer on duty is not a crucial point against the prosecution since it has the discretion as to how to present its case and the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses."
Petitioner's contention that the person who received the specimen in the crime laboratory, as well as the evidence custodian, police investigator, and the court employee who received the evidence, should be presented as witnesses, fails to persuade. "It is not necessary to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drug to testify in court. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to properly identify the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. The non-presentation as witnesses of the evidence custodian and the officer on duty is not a crucial point against the prosecution since it has the discretion as to how to present its case and the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses."
As found by the CA, the chain of custody of seized drugs was sufficiently established. The seized drugs were marked with the initials of the apprehending officer in the presence of the petitioner. When brought to the police station, an inventory was made of the confiscated sachet. Thereafter, the sachet was submitted to the crime laboratory where the examination of its contents yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under Republic Act No. 9165.
Finally, the failure to inventory and photograph the seized item in the presence of the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, as well as any elected public official will not result in the acquittal of petitioner. Their presence is not one of the elements of the crime. As correctly held by the CA, their absence "is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible, x x x [W]hat is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of guilt of the accused."
SUGGESTED READINGS:
[1] Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil 137, 148 (2012) citing People v. Sembrano, 642 Phil 476, 490-491 (2010).
[2] People v. Saldivar, 131 Phil. 174, 188 (2014).
[3]People v. Araza, 141 Phil. 20, 38 (2014).
[2] People v. Saldivar, 131 Phil. 174, 188 (2014).
[3]People v. Araza, 141 Phil. 20, 38 (2014).
