SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL, Accused-Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x The delivery of the illegal drugs subject of the sale and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. It is therefore important to prove only that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs. x x x
x x x x
After a prudent consideration, the court finds that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the collective evidence presented during the trial by the prosecution adequately established that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted by the operatives of the MADAC as well as the SAID-SOTF, Makati City on April 8, 2008 after proper coordination with the PDEA was made x x x. During the operation, 0.05 gram of shabu x x x was purchased by MADAC operative Serrano from accused Manolito Opiana in consideration of P300.00. The results of the laboratory test confirmed that the item contained in the said plastic sachet which was bought from the accused was indeed methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu x x x. There can be no gainsaying the credibility of the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the specimen. In fact, nothing was adduced or intimated that the said prosecution witness had reason to fabricate or concoct her findings.
Likewise, there can be no question about the identity of the corpus delicti in the instant case for sale of illegal drugs. The small plastic sachet containing shabu marked as “WIN” which was brought to and identified in court was found to be the same plastic sachet of shabu which the prosecution witness, MADAC operative Serrano, purchased from the accused during the buy-bust operation. Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Bobier testified and confirmed having signed the inventory sheet x x x of the items seized from the accused in his presence. Therefore, the integrity and evidentiary value of the items confiscated and/or purchased from the accused had been well safeguarded as to be reliable. Needless to state, the identity of the accused was positively established in open court by the witnesses for the prosecution who pointed to him as the same person who was apprehended during the buy-bust operation.
Moreover, the prosecution adequately established the existence of all the elements for the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same Act, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug x x x.
It has been ruled that there can be no conviction for the subject offense unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed the prohibited articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his possession or control of such article x x x. Based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, however, it was clearly shown that nineteen (19) plastic sachets containing shabu x x x were recovered from the accused. The contents thereof were later examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory and were found to be in fact methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The accused had no authority to possess or otherwise use said dangerous drugs; neither did he have any license or prescription to possess the same. The intention of the accused to possess the said plastic sachets containing shabu was patent considering that these were found in his person after a routine body search was conducted. It is also beyond cavil that he possessed the said plastic sachets containing shabu freely and consciously.
The inventory of the items seized from the accused and the testimony in open court of Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Bobier, an elected official, bolstered the claim of the prosecution that a buy-bust operation was conducted by operatives of the MADAC as well as SAID-SOTF, Makati City, which operation resulted in the arrest of the accused. It is settled that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. x x x1
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 08-542, the court finds the accused, MANOLITO OPIANA y TANAEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 08-543, the court finds the same accused, MANOLITO OPIANA y TANAEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided by law.
SO ORDERED.2
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 26 May 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.3
x x x [T]he marking of the evidence was testified to by Serrano whereas the testimony of the investigator x x x was stipulated upon by the prosecution and the defense. The recovered items were turned over to PO1 Randy C. Santos upon his conduct of investigation. The request for laboratory examination was delivered by PO1 Gimena on 08 April 2008 at 2125H and the same was received by PSI Jocelyn J. Belen whose testimony was likewise stipulated upon. Although there has been no photographs taken and no testimony as to what happened with the evidence after the same was submitted for laboratory examination, the same was positively identified by Serrano during trial. x x x4
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.
1 Records, pp. 112-114.
2 Id. at 114; penned by Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
3 CA rollo, p. 154; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizarro.
4 Id. at 91.
5Rollo, pp. 39-40.
6 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
7People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).