PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JORDAN RAMOS PATRICIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BRUSELAS, JR. J.:
In his motion for reconsideration[2] of the aforementioned decision, the accused-appellant merely re-argues that there exists a reasonable doubt that the specimen presented as evidence in court was the very same item allegedly seized from him. He further re-argues that the said evidence may have been exposed to alteration, tampering, contamination and substitution, which would place the integrity and evidentiary value of the item in question.
The motion is devoid of merit.
A perusal of the said motion discloses that the accused-appellant has failed to set forth any other new, valid and justifiable ground or reason that would compel us to alter, much less, reverse our ruling. The arguments embodied in the motion have already been amply discussed and passed upon when we rendered our decision, and it will be a redundancy if we will again rule on the same.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, p. 84.
[2] Rollo, p. 104.