CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals has convicted a man for illegal possession of dangerous drugs despite his claim that it was not his house that the police of Talisay City raided.
In a 17-page decision penned by Associate Justice Edgardo delos Santos, CA dismissed the appeal filed by Norberto Cabriana for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
“… the prosecution evidence had sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs and consequently, preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the recovered evidence. Thus, there is no doubt that the accused had committed the crime imputed against him,” the decision reads.
In 2011, the trial court convicted Cabriana and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 12 years to 15 years and a fine of P300,000.
Cabriana, however, appealed his conviction.
He said the trial court erred in convicting him even if there was no sufficient evidence shown that he had actual possession or control of the dangerous drugs. It also erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he added.
According to the accused-appellant, the pieces of evidence seized by the police were not his as the shabu were seized inside the house of a certain Ligaya Ababon. The incident happened on July 16, 2005 at around 6:30 p.m. in Sitio Hawod, Bulacao, Talisay City.
He claimed that during the implementation of the search warrant, he was not inside the subject house. The CA did not buy the contentions of the accused-appellant.
“It is clear from the testimonies of the police officers that they conducted surveillance and ascertained the residence and house of the accused prior to the implementation of the search warrant,” CA ruled.
The CA added that it is a settled rule that in cases involving dangerous drugs, credence is given to the prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to contrary.
The CA, likewise, ruled that Cabriana failed to substantiate his claim that he did not own the house. (FREEMAN)