G.R. No.

185166

January 26, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MARK LESTER ELA ROSA y S!ELLO, Accused-Appellant. DECISION PERE", J.: The subject of this p esent appeal is the Decision ! dated "# Ap il "$$% of the Cou t of Appeals in CA-&.'. C' (C No. $")#", affi *in+ the Decision" dated % Dece*be "$$) of the 'e+ional T ial Cou t ,'TC- of .a/ati Cit0, 1 anch !23, in C i*inal Case Nos. $)-!%4$ to $)-!%4!, findin+ he ein appellant .a / 5este Dela 'osa 0 Suello +uilt0 be0ond easonable doubt of the c i*e of ille+al sale and ille+al possession of *a ijuana, a dan+e ous d u+, in violation of Sections 3 2 and !!,# A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, 3 the eb0, sentencin+ hi* to suffe the penalt0 of life i*p ison*ent and to pa0 a fine of P3$$,$$$.$$ fo violation of Section 3, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3 ,C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4$- and an indete *inate penalt0 of !" 0ea s and ! da0, as *ini*u*, to !# 0ea s and % *onths, as *a7i*u*, and to pa0 a fine of P2$$,$$$.$$ fo violation of Section !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3 ,C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4!-. In t8o sepa ate Info *ations ) both dated ") Septe*be "$$), appellant .a / 5este Dela 'osa 0 Suello 8as cha +ed 8ith violation of Sections 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, 8hich 8e e espectivel0 doc/eted as C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4$ and C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4!. The Info *ations ead as follo8s9 C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4$ That on o about the "3th da0 of Septe*be "$$), in the Cit0 of .a/ati, Philippines, and a place 8ithin the ju isdiction of this (ono able Cou t, :appellant;, not bein+ la8full0 autho i<ed to possess an0 dan+e ous d u+ and 8ithout the co espondin+ license o p esc iption did then and the e 8illfull0, unla8full0 and feloniousl0 sell, dist ibute and t anspo t th ee point <e o t8o ,2.$"- + a*s of *a ijuana, 8hich is a dan+e ous d u+ in conside ation of the a*ount of one hund ed ,Php!$$.$$- pesos.4 :E*phasis supplied;.

C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4! That on o about the "3th da0 of Septe*be "$$), in the Cit0 of .a/ati, Philippines, a place 8ithin the ju isdiction of this (ono able Cou t, :appellant;, not bein+ la8full0 autho i<ed to possess an0 dan+e ous d u+ and 8ithout the co espondin+ license o p esc iption, did then and the e 8illfull0, unla8full0 and feloniousl0 have in his possession five point si7 <e o ,3.)$- + a*s of :*;a ijuana, 8hich is a dan+e ous d u+.% :E*phasis supplied;. =hen a ai+ned,6 appellant, assisted b0 counsel de oficio, pleaded >NOT &?I5T@> to both cha +es. The eafte , t ial on the *e its ensued. The p osecution p esented the testi*on0 of its lone 8itness, Police Office 2 Eusebio 5o8aton, A . ,PO2 5o8aton-, of the Special Anti Ille+al D u+-Special Ope ation Tas/ Bo ce ,SAID-SOTB-, .a/ati Cit0. The facts of the case as culled f o* the eco ds and testi*on0 of PO2 5o8aton a e as follo8s9 On "3 Septe*be "$$), the .a/ati Anti-D u+ Abuse Council ,.ADAC- ope atives, to+ethe 8ith an info *ant, ca*e to the office of SAID-SOTB, .a/ati Cit0, 8he e PO2 5o8aton 8as one of the police office s assi+ned the eat, and epo ted that appellant 8as involved in the ille+al sale of *a ijuana in Cala0aan Avenue, 1a an+a0 Sin+/a*as, .a/ati Cit0.!$ On the basis the eof, the SAID-SOTB, .a/ati Cit0, fo *ed a tea* to conduct a bu0-bust ope ation to ve if0 if appellant 8as, indeed, involved in the ille+al sale of *a ijuana in the above-*entioned place. The bu0-bust tea* th ou+h one of its *e*be s, PO2 5o8aton, p epa ed a P e-Ope ational 'epo tDCoo dination Sheet !! and sent the sa*e to the Philippine D u+ Enfo ce*ent A+enc0 ,PDEA-. In esponse the eto, PDEA sent a Ce tificate of Coo dination !" to confi * that the bu0-bust tea* of SAID-SOTB, .a/ati Cit0, had *ade the necessa 0 coo dination 8ith thei office in connection 8ith the conduct of its anti-d u+ ope ations a+ainst appellant. !2 Afte a co*plete coo dination 8ith PDEA, the b iefin+ of the *e*be s of the bu0-bust tea* follo8ed, 8he ein PO2 5o8aton 8as desi+nated

as poseu -bu0e . (e 8as also +iven t8o Bift0 Peso bills !# *a /ed *one0 in the total a*ount of P!$$.$$, bea in+ Se ial Nos. B' #%3!"6 and C@ 32"$%#, espectivel0, 8ith *a /in+s >ATS> on the uppe i+ht po tion of the se ial nu*be of each bill. !3 The eafte , the bu0-bust tea*, to+ethe 8ith the info *ant, p oceeded to the ta +et a ea in Cala0aan Avenue, 1a an+a0 Sin+/a*as, .a/ati Cit0. ?pon a ival the eat, the bu0-bust tea* 8aited fo the appellant and soon afte , the latte a ived afte a fe8 *inutes. SubseEuentl0, PO2 5o8aton and the info *ant 8al/ed to8a ds the di ection of the appellant. The info *ant then app oached appellant and int oduced to hi* PO2 5o8aton as so*eone inte ested in bu0in+ *a ijuana. Appellant as/ed PO2 5o8aton as to the a*ount of *a ijuana that he 8anted to bu0 to 8hich the latte eplied that he 8ould be bu0in+ P!$$.$$ 8o th of *a ijuana. Appellant i**ediatel0 too/ one plastic sachet of *a ijuana f o* his poc/et that co esponds to the a*ount a+ eed upon and handed the sa*e to PO2 5o8aton. The latte , in tu n, handed the t8o *a /ed Bift0 Peso bills to appellant as pa0*ent fo the pu chased ite*.!) ?pon the consu**ation of the sale, PO2 5o8aton e7ecuted thei p e-a an+ed si+nal b0 holdin+ appellantFs i+ht hand. At this junctu e, the othe *e*be s of the bu0-bust tea* 8ho 8e e in the vicinit0 of the ta +et a ea ca*e in to help PO2 5o8aton, 8ho at that *o*ent had al ead0 int oduced hi*self as a police office , in a estin+ appellant. Appellant 8as a ested at a ound 29!3 p.*. PO2 5o8aton info *ed appellant of the cause of his a est and of his constitutional i+hts. =hile f is/in+ the appellant, ho8eve , PO2 5o8aton ecove ed f o* the fo *e t8o *o e plastic sachets of *a ijuana. SubseEuentl0, PO2 5o8aton *a /ed the one plastic sachet of *a ijuana sold to hi* b0 appellant 8ith his initials >E15.> (e li/e8ise *a /ed the t8o othe plastic sachets of *a ijuana that he ecove ed f o* appellant as >E15-!> and >E15-".> The sei<ed ite*s f o* appellant 8e e also invento ied at the place 8he e appellant 8as a ested and in his p esence, as evidenced b0 an Ac/no8led+*ent 'eceipt !4 dated "3 Septe*be "$$).!% Afte appellantFs a est, he 8as b ou+ht to the office of SAID-SOTB, .a/ati Cit0. The th ee plastic sachets of *a ijuana that has been p eviousl0 *a /ed 8e e photo+ aphed !6 and sent to the Philippine

National Police ,PNP- C i*e 5abo ato 0 fo e7a*ination. The e7a*ination conducted on the afo esaid speci*en, i.e., th ee plastic sachet of *a ijuana, 0ielded positive "$ esults to the tests fo the p esence of *a ijuana, a dan+e ous d u+, as evidenced b0 a Ph0sical Science 'epo t No. D-)36-$)S. "! Also, afte the co*pletion of the bu0-bust ope ation, an afte ope ation epo t o the so-called >Spot 'epo t>"" 8as p epa ed and sent to PDEA."2 Afte PO2 5o8atonFs testi*on0, the pa ties a+ eed and stipulated that the testi*on0 of Aeff e0 Abellana, one of .ADAC ope atives, 8ould be that he 8as a *e*be of the bac/ up tea* that assisted in the a est of appellant. The p osecution, thus, decided to dispense 8ith his testi*on0."# The defense, on the othe hand, p esented appellant as thei sole 8itness and offe ed a diffe ent ve sion of 8hat t anspi ed on the da0 of his a est. Appellant na ated that on "3 Septe*be "$$), at a ound !"9$$ noon, he 8as sleepin+ inside his house located at #$#! Cala0aan St eet, 1a an+a0 Sin+/a*as, .a/ati Cit0, 8hen suddenl0 he 8as a8a/ened b0 th ee pe sons, 8ho int oduced the*selves as .ADAC ope atives. These .ADAC ope atives 8e e loo/in+ fo a ce tain 'icha d. ?pon as/in+ the* the eason 8h0 the0 8e e loo/in+ fo 'icha d inside his house and at the sa*e ti*e tellin+ the* that he 8as not the pe son the0 8e e loo/in+ fo , the .ADAC ope atives si*pl0 told hi* to just +o 8ith the* peacefull0. =ithout offe in+ an0 esistance, appellant 8ent 8ith the .ADAC ope atives. The latte b ou+ht hi* to thei office 8he e he 8as as/ed to eveal the 8he eabouts of 'icha d to 8hich the appellant eplied that he does not /no8 the pe son the0 8e e loo/in+ fo . At this junctu e, the .ADAC ope atives told hi* that if he 8ill not eveal the 8he eabouts of 'icha d, then, the0 8ill cha +e hi* 8ith possession of *a ijuana that the0 8e e ca 0in+ at that *o*ent. The eafte , he 8as detained at thei office fo about ei+ht to nine da0s. "3 Appellant fu the stated that 8hen the .ADAC ope atives b ou+ht hi* out of the detention cell, he 8as subseEuentl0 b ou+ht inside a buildin+ 8he e the e 8as a fiscal. The latte then info *ed hi* that he 8as cha +ed 8ith the c i*e of ille+al sale and possession of

*a ijuana in violation of Sections 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3. Appellant, ho8eve , denied the sa*e. ") Afte all the docu*enta 0 and testi*onial evidence offe ed b0 both pa ties 8e e *eticulousl0 evaluated, the t ial cou t concluded that all the ele*ents of the offenses cha +ed a+ainst appellant 8e e satisfacto il0 p oven b0 the p osecution. Thus, in its Decision dated % Dece*be "$$), the t ial cou t held appellant +uilt0 be0ond easonable doubt of violation of Sections 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3. The t ial cou t disposed of the case as follo8s9 =(E'EBO'E, it appea in+ that the +uilt of :appellant; .A'C 5ESTE' DE 5A 'OSA 0 S?E55O 8as p oven be0ond easonable doubt, as p incipal, 8ith no *iti+atin+ o a++ avatin+ ci cu*stances, fo violation :of; Section:s; 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, he is he eb0 sentenced9 !. In C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4$, to suffe life i*p ison*ent and to pa0 a fine of P3$$,$$$.$$G ". In C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4!, to suffe i*p ison*ent fo an indete *inate te * of t8elve :!"; 0ea s and one :!; da0, as *ini*u*, to fou teen :!#; 0ea s, and ei+ht :%; *onths, as *a7i*u*, and to pa0 a fine of P2$$,$$$.$$G and 2. To pa0 the costs. 5et the plastic sachets containin+ 2.$"+ a*s, ".63 + a*s, and ".)3 + a*s of *a ijuana be tu ned ove to the PDEA fo p ope disposition."4 :E*phasis supplied;. A++ ieved, appellant appealed the afo esaid % Dece*be "$$) Decision of the t ial cou t to the Cou t of Appeals via a Notice of Appeal."% The Cou t of Appeals, afte a tho ou+h stud0 of the eco ds, ende ed the assailed Decision dated "# Ap il "$$%, affi *in+ appellantFs conviction fo violation of Sections 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3. The dec etal po tion of the said Decision eads, thus9

=(E'EBO'E, the instant appeal is he eb0 DENIED and the Euestioned Decision of the 'TC of .a/ati Cit0, 1 anch !23, in C i*inal Case Nos. $)-!%4$ and $)-!%4!, convictin+ the :appellant; be0ond easonable doubt of the c i*e of violation of Sections 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, ABBI'.ED. "6 :E*phasis supplied;. Still unsatisfied, appellant elevated the afo esaid Decision of the appellate cou t to this Cou t via a Notice of Appeal. 2$ In a 'esolution2! dated !# Aanua 0 "$$6, this Cou t eEui ed the pa ties to si*ultaneousl0 sub*it thei espective supple*ental b iefs if the0 so desi e. Instead of filin+ a Supple*ental 1 ief, the Office of the Solicito &ene al filed a .anifestation and .otion 2" statin+ that it be e7cused f o* filin+ it as the appellant has not advanced an0 co+ent o co*pellin+ eason fo the *odification, *uch less eve sal of the assailed appellate cou tFs Decision. Appellant, on the othe hand, opted to file a Supple*ental 1 ief 22 eite atin+ the ein the a +u*ents aised in his AppellantFs 1 ief filed befo e the Cou t of Appeals. In his b ief, appellant aised the follo8in+ assi+n*ent of e o s9 I. T(E CO?'T A H?O &'AIE5@ E''ED IN &IIIN& C'EDENCE TO T(E EIIDENCE OB T(E P'OSEC?TION =(IC( BAI5ED TO OIE'CO.E T(E P'ES?.PTION OB INNOCENCE IN BAIO' OB T(E :APPE55ANT;. II. T(E CO?'T A H?O &'AIE5@ E''ED IN BINDIN& T(E :APPE55ANT; &?I5T@ OB T(E C'I.ES C(A'&ED NOT=IT(STANDIN& T(E BAI5?'E OB T(E P'OSEC?TION TO P'OIE (IS &?I5T 1E@OND 'EASONA15E DO?1T.2# Appellant a +ues that the fact of sale of *a ijuana 8as not conclusivel0 established because PO2 5o8atonFs testi*on0 8as inc edible fo no pe son in his i+ht *ind 8ould boldl0 sell p ohibited

d u+s in b oad da0li+ht and in a public place. The inconsistenc0 in the testi*on0 of PO2 5o8aton as e+a ds thei p e-a an+ed si+nal si*ila l0 casts doubt on the c edibilit0 of his testi*on0. .o e so, the alle+ed bu0-bust ope ation 8as conducted 8ithout an0 p io su veillance. Appellant li/e8ise *aintains that his a est 8as tainted 8ith i e+ula it0 as the e 8as an evident violation of Section "!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3. 10 eason of the fo e+oin+, appellant insists that his constitutional i+ht to p esu*ption of innocence e*ains because the e is easonable doubt that calls fo his acEuittal. Afte a painsta/in+ evie8 of the eco ds, this Cou t affi *s appellantFs conviction fo violation of Sections 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3. In eve 0 p osecution fo ille+al sale of dan+e ous d u+s, li/e *a ijuana, the follo8in+ ele*ents *ust be sufficientl0 p oved to sustain a conviction the efo 9 ,!- the identit0 of the bu0e , as 8ell as the selle , the object and conside ation of the saleG and ,"- the delive 0 of the thin+ sold and the pa0*ent the efo . 23 =hat is *ate ial is p oof that the t ansaction o sale actuall0 too/ place, coupled 8ith the p esentation in cou t of the dan+e ous d u+s sei<ed as evidence. =e eite ate the *eanin+ of the te * corpus delicti 8hich is the actual co**ission b0 so*eone of the pa ticula c i*e cha +ed. 2) The co**ission of the offense of ille+al sale of dan+e ous d u+s, li/e *a ijuana, eEui es *e el0 the consu**ation of the sellin+ t ansaction, 8hich happens the *o*ent the bu0e eceives the d u+ f o* the selle . Settled is the ule that as lon+ as the police office 8ent th ou+h the ope ation as a bu0e and his offe 8as accepted b0 appellant and the dan+e ous d u+s delive ed to the fo *e G the c i*e is conside ed consu**ated b0 the delive 0 of the +oods. 24 In the case at bench, this Cou t is full0 convinced that the p osecution has adeEuatel0 and satisfacto il0 p oved all the afo esaid ele*ents of ille+al sale of *a ijuana. Appellant, 8ho 8as cau+ht in fla+ ante delicto, 8as positivel0 identified b0 PO2 5o8aton, 8ho acted as the poseu -bu0e , as the sa*e pe son 8ho sold the one plastic sachet of *a ijuana to hi* 8ei+hin+ 2.$" + a*s fo a conside ation of P!$$.$$. Such one plastic

sachet of *a ijuana 8as p esented in cou t, 8hich PO2 5o8aton identified to be the sa*e object sold to hi* b0 appellant. (e fu the stated that the *a /in+s >E15> found on the said object 8e e his initials, 8hich he placed the eon at the ti*e the appellant 8as a ested.2% PO2 5o8aton si*ila l0 identified in cou t the ecove ed *a /ed *one0 f o* the appellant that consists of t8o Bift0 Peso bills in the total a*ount of P!$$.$$ 8ith *a /in+s >ATS> on the uppe i+ht po tion of the se ial nu*be of each bill.26 .o e so, the testi*on0 of PO2 5o8aton clea l0 established in detail ho8 his t ansaction 8ith appellant happened sta tin+ f o* the *o*ent thei info *ant int oduced hi* to appellant as so*eone inte ested in bu0in+ his stuff f o* the ti*e appellant handed hi* the one plastic sachet of *a ijuana and, in tu n, he handed appellant the t8o Bift0 Peso bills *a /ed *one0 fo a total a*ount of P!$$.$$ that consu**ated the sale t ansaction bet8een hi* and appellant. PO2 5o8aton caused the one plastic sachet of *a ijuana to be e7a*ined at the PNP C i*e 5abo ato 0. The ite* 8ei+hin+ 2.$" + a*s 8as tested positive fo *a ijuana as evidenced b0 Ph0sical Science 'epo t No. D-)36-$)S p epa ed b0 En+inee 'icha d Allan 1. .an+alip, Bo ensic Che*ical Office DChief, Ph0sical Science Section of the PNP C i*e 5abo ato 0-Southe n Police Dist ict C i*e 5abo ato 0 Office. Thus, it is al ead0 be0ond Euestion that appellantFs +uilt fo the c i*e of ille+al sale of *a ijuana, a dan+e ous d u+, in violation of Section 3, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3 8as p oven b0 the p osecution be0ond easonable doubt. AppellantFs contention that PO2 5o8atonFs testi*on0 8as not c edible fo no pe son in his i+ht *ind 8ould boldl0 sell p ohibited d u+s in b oad da0li+ht and in a public place dese ves scant conside ation. This Cou t has consistentl0 p onounced that d u+ pushe s sell thei p ohibited a ticles to an0 p ospective custo*e , be he a st an+e o not, in p ivate, as 8ell as in public places, even in the da0ti*e. Indeed, d u+ pushe s have beco*e inc easin+l0 da in+, dan+e ous and, 8o se, openl0 defiant of the la8. (ence, 8hat *atte s is not the e7istin+ fa*ilia it0 bet8een the bu0e and the selle o the ti*e and venue of the sale, but the fact of a+ ee*ent and the acts constitutin+

sale and delive 0 of the p ohibited d u+s.#$ Si*ila l0, the alle+ed cont adiction and inconsistenc0 pointed to b0 appellant in the testi*on0 of PO2 5o8aton as e+a ds the p ea an+ed si+nal a+ eed upon b0 the bu0-bust tea* is onl0 *ino , t ivial, i**ate ial, and does not in an0 8a0 affect the c edibilit0 of PO2 5o8atonFs testi*on0, since his testi*on0 clea l0 and cate+o icall0 established the sale of *a ijuana. Such *ino inconsistenc0 efe in+ to the details of the sale of *a ijuana *a0 be conside ed as bad+es of t uth athe than of falsehood. #! In People v. Nicolas,#" this Cou t held that the e*plo0*ent of a p ea an+ed si+nal, o the lac/ of it, is not indispensable in a bu0-bust ope ation. =hat dete *ines if the e 8as, indeed, a sale of dan+e ous d u+s is p oof of the concu ence of all the ele*ents of the offense. =ith *o e eason that a *e e inconsistenc0 the eof does not and 8ill not affect the c edibilit0 of the p osecution 8itness so lon+ as all the ele*ents of the offense have been established 8ith ce taint0. That no test bu0 8as conducted befo e the a est is of no *o*ent fo the e is no i+id o te7tboo/ *ethod of conductin+ bu0-bust ope ations. Bo the sa*e eason, the absence of evidence of a p io su veillance does not affect the e+ula it0 of a bu0-bust ope ation, especiall0 8hen, li/e in this case, the bu0-bust tea* *e*be s 8e e acco*panied to the scene b0 thei info *ant. The Cou t 8ill not p etend to establish on a p io i basis 8hat detailed acts police autho ities *i+ht c edibl0 unde ta/e and ca 0 out in thei ent ap*ent ope ations. The selection of app op iate and effective *eans of ent appin+ d u+ t affic/e s is best left to the disc etion of police autho ities.#2 Bo ille+al possession of a dan+e ous d u+, li/e *a ijuana, it *ust be sho8n that ,!- the accused 8as in possession of an ite* o an object identified to be a p ohibited o e+ulated d u+, ,"- such possession is not autho i<ed b0 la8, and ,2- the accused 8as f eel0 and consciousl0 a8a e of bein+ in possession of the d u+. ## All the afo esaid ele*ents 8e e clea l0 established b0 the p osecution. As an incident to his la8ful a est esultin+ f o* the bu0bust ope ation, appellant 8as si*ila l0 found to have in his

possession t8o *o e plastic sachets of *a ijuana 8ith a total 8ei+ht of 3.)$ + a*s, the sa*e /ind of dan+e ous d u+ he 8as cau+ht sellin+ in fla+ ante delicto. The said t8o plastic sachets of *a ijuana 8as also p esented in cou t, 8hich PO2 5o8atan identified to be the sa*e objects ecove ed f o* appellant 8hile he 8as bein+ f is/ed on the occasion of his a est fo ille+all0 sellin+ *a ijuana. PO2 5o8aton li/e8ise e7plained that the *a /in+s >E15-!> and >E15-"> 8 itten on the t8o plastic sachets of *a ijuana 8e e his initials and the sa*e 8e e done b0 hi*. Bu the , the eco d is be eft of an0 evidence that 8ould sho8 that appellant had the le+al autho it0 to possess the t8o plastic sachets of *a ijuana ecove ed f o* hi*. This Cou t held in a catena of cases that a *e e possession of a e+ulated d u+ per se constitutes p i*a facie evidence of /no8led+e o ani*us possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfacto 0 e7planation of such possession J the onus p obandi is shifted to the accused, to e7plain the absence of /no8led+e o ani*us possidendi. #3 =ith that, appellantFs +uilt fo the c i*e of ille+al possession of *a ijuana, a dan+e ous d u+, in clea violation of Section !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, 8as also p oven b0 the p osecution be0ond easonable doubt. As a last ditch effo t, appellant clai*s that his a est 8as tainted 8ith i e+ula it0 as the sei<ed ite*s 8e e not photo+ aphed in acco dance 8ith the p ovisions of Section "!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, thus, an evident violation the eof. The said a +u*ent is baseless. Section "!, pa a+ aph !, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3 p ovides9 Section "!. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment . J The PDEA shall ta/e cha +e and have custod0 of all dan+e ous d u+s, plant sou ces of dan+e ous d u+s, cont olled p ecu so s and essential che*icals, as 8ell as inst u*entsDpa aphe nalia andDo labo ato 0 eEuip*ent so confiscated, sei<ed andDo su ende ed, fo p ope disposition in the follo8in+ *anne 9

,!- The app ehendin+ tea* havin+ initial custod0 and cont ol of the d u+s shall, i**ediatel0 afte sei<u e and confiscation, ph0sicall0 invento 0 and photo+ aph the sa*e in the p esence of the accused o the pe sonDs f o* 8ho* such ite*s 8e e confiscated andDo sei<ed, o hisDhe ep esentative o counsel, a ep esentative f o* the *edia and the Depa t*ent of Austice ,DOA-, and an0 elected public official 8ho shall be eEui ed to si+n the copies of the invento 0 and be +iven a cop0 the eofG :E*phasis supplied;. The afo esaid p ovision is i*ple*ented b0 Section "!,a-, A ticle II of the I*ple*entin+ 'ules and 'e+ulations ,I''- of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, vi<.9 ,a- The app ehendin+ tea* havin+ initial custod0 and cont ol of the d u+s shall, #$$%&#a'%(y a)'%r *%#+ur% an& ,on)#*,a'#on, -.y*#,a((y #n/%n'ory an& -.o'o0ra-. '.% *a$% #n '.% -r%*%n,% o) '.% a,,u*%& or '.% -%r*on1* )ro$ 2.o$ *u,. #'%$* 2%r% ,on)#*,a'%& an&1or *%#+%&, or .#*1.%r r%-r%*%n'a'#/% or ,oun*%(, a r%-r%*%n'a'#/% )ro$ '.% $%&#a an& '.% %-ar'$%n' o) Ju*'#,% 3 OJ4, an& any %(%,'%& -u5(#, o))#,#a( 8ho shall be eEui ed to si+n the copies of the invento 0 and be +iven a cop0 the eof9 Pro/#&%&, )ur'.%r, '.a' non6,o$-(#an,% 2#'. '.%*% r%7u#r%$%n'* un&%r 8u*'#)#a5(% 0roun&*, a* (on0 a* '.% #n'%0r#'y an& '.% %/#&%n'#ary /a(u% o) '.% *%#+%& #'%$* ar% -ro-%r(y -r%*%r/%& b0 the app ehendin+ office Dtea*, shall no' r%n&%r /o#& an& #n/a(#& *u,. *%#+ur%* o) an& ,u*'o&y ove said ite*s. :E*phasis supplied;. The afo e-Euoted Section "!,a-, A ticle II of the I'' of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, offe s so*e fle7ibilit0 in co*pl0in+ 8ith the e7p ess eEui e*ents. Indeed, the evident pu pose of the p ocedu e is the p ese vation of the inte+ it0 and evidentia 0 value of the sei<ed ite*s, as the sa*e 8ould be utili<ed in the dete *ination of the +uilt of o innocence of the accused. Thus, the p oviso statin+ that nonco*pliance 8ith the stipulated p ocedu e, unde justifiable + ounds, shall not ende void and invalid such sei<u es of and custod0 ove said ite*s, fo as lon+ as the inte+ it0 and evidentia 0 value of the sei<ed ite*s a e p ope l0 p ese ved b0 the app ehendin+ office s. #) In the p esent case, the eco ds and the t ansc ibed steno+ aphic notes clea l0 sho8ed that the sei<ed ite*s f o* appellant 8e e

ph0sicall0 invento ied b0 PO2 5o8aton at the place 8he e appellant 8as a ested and in his p esence, as evidenced b0 an Ac/no8led+*ent 'eceipt#4 dated "3 Septe*be "$$).#% Also, 8hen appellant 8as b ou+ht to the office of SAID-SOTB, .a/ati Cit0, the *a /ed th ee plastic sachets of *a ijuana 8e e photo+ aphed #6 b0 the app ehendin+ tea* befo e it 8as sent to the PNP C i*e 5abo ato 0 fo e7a*ination, 8hich e7a*ination 0ielded positive 3$ esult to the tests fo the p esence of *a ijuana, a dan+e ous d u+, as evidenced b0 a Ph0sical Science 'epo t No. D-)36-$)S. 3! Even + antin+ a +uendo that the p osecution failed to sho8 that the police office s conducted the eEui ed ph0sical invento 0 and photo+ aph of the evidence confiscated pu suant to the afo esaid +uidelines, the sa*e is not fatal and does not auto*aticall0 ende appellantKs a est ille+al o the ite*s sei<ed o confiscated f o* hi* inad*issible. =hat is of ut*ost i*po tance is the p ese vation of the inte+ it0 and evidentia 0 value of the sei<ed ite*s, as it 8ould be utili<ed in the dete *ination of the +uilt o innocence of the accused. 3" T.% ,.a#n o) ,u*'o&y r%7u#r%$%n' -%r)or$* '.% )un,'#on o) %n*ur#n0 '.a' '.% #n'%0r#'y an& %/#&%n'#ary /a(u% o) '.% *%#+%& #'%$* ar% -r%*%r/%&, *o $u,. *o '.a' unn%,%**ary &ou5'* a* 'o '.% #&%n'#'y o) '.% %/#&%n,% ar% r%$o/%& . To be ad*issible, the p osecution *ust sho8 b0 eco ds o testi*on0, the continuous 8he eabouts of the e7hibit at least bet8een the ti*e it ca*e into possession of the police office s and until it 8as tested in the labo ato 0 to dete *ine its co*position up to the ti*e it 8as offe ed in evidence.32 The p osecution, in this case, has adeEuatel0 sho8n the continuous and unb o/en possession and subseEuent t ansfe s of the th ee plastic sachets of *a ijuana f o* the ti*e appellant handed to PO2 5o8aton the one plastic sachet of *a ijuana to consu**ate the sale the eofG then the subseEuent ecove 0 b0 PO2 5o8aton of t8o *o e plastic sachets of *a ijuana f o* appellantG follo8ed b0 the *a /in+s *ade b0 PO2 5o8aton of his initials on the said th ee plastic sachets of *a ijuana at the place 8he e appellant 8as a ested and in his p esenceG until the0 8e e sent to the PNP C i*e 5abo ato 0 fo e7a*ination that 0ielded positive esult fo the p esence of *a ijuana, a dan+e ous d u+, as evidenced b0 a Ph0sical Science 'epo t No. D-

)36-$)SG and up to the ti*e that the *a /ed th ee plastic sachets of *a ijuana 8e e offe ed in cou t. Such fact pe suasivel0 p oves that the th ee plastic sachets of *a ijuana p esented in cou t 8e e the sa*e ite*s sei<ed f o* appellant du in+ the bu0-bust ope ation. The inte+ it0 and evidentia 0 value the eof 8as dul0 p ese ved. It has been judiciall0 settled that in bu0-bust ope ations, the testi*on0 of the police office s 8ho app ehended the accused is usuall0 acco ded full faith and c edit because of the p esu*ption that the0 have pe fo *ed thei duties e+ula l0. This p esu*ption is ove tu ned onl0 if the e is clea and convincin+ evidence that the0 8e e not p ope l0 pe fo *in+ thei dut0 o that the0 8e e inspi ed b0 i*p ope *otive. The cou ts, nonetheless, a e advised to ta/e caution in appl0in+ the p esu*ption of e+ula it0. It should not b0 itself p evail ove the p esu*ption of innocence and the constitutionall0-p otected i+hts of the individual.3# In People v. De &u<*an33 citin+ People v. Do ia,3) this Cou t too/ pain in discussin+ the >objective> test in bu0-bust ope ations to dete *ine the c edibilit0 of the testi*on0 of the police office s involved in the ope ation9 =e the efo e st ess that the >objective> test in bu0-bust ope ations de*ands that the details of the pu po ted t ansaction *ust be clea l0 and adeEuatel0 sho8n. This *ust sta t f o* the initial contact bet8een the poseu -bu0e and the pushe , the offe to pu chase, the p o*ise o pa0*ent of the conside ation until the consu**ation of the sale b0 the delive 0 of the ille+al d u+ subject of the sale. The *anne b0 8hich the initial contact 8as *ade, 8hethe o not th ou+h an info *ant, the offe to pu chase the d u+, the pa0*ent of the >bu0bust> *one0, and the delive 0 of the ille+al d u+, 8hethe to the info *ant alone o the police office , *ust be the subject of st ict sc utin0 b0 cou ts to insu e that la8-abidin+ citi<ens a e not unla8full0 induced to co**it an offense. C i*inals *ust be cau+ht but not at all cost. At the sa*e ti*e, ho8eve , e7a*inin+ the conduct of the police should not disable cou ts into i+no in+ the accusedFs p edisposition to co**it the c i*e. If the e is ove 8hel*in+ evidence of habitual delinEuenc0, ecidivis* o plain c i*inal p oclivit0, then this *ust also be conside ed. Cou ts should loo/ at all facto s to dete *ine the p edisposition of an accused to co**it an offense in so fa as the0

a e elevant to dete *ine the validit0 of the defense of induce*ent. 34 As aptl0 obse ved b0 both the t ial cou t and the appellate cou t9 =e find the testi*on0 of the poseu -bu0e , :PO2 5o8aton; clea and c edible. (e ecounted in full detail ho8 the deal 8as set b0 the info *ant, the actual e7chan+e of the plastic sachet of *a ijuana and the :*a /ed *one0; consistin+ of t8o ,"- :B;ift0 :P;eso bills, and the app ehension of the :appellant; :and the incidental ecove 0 of t8o *o e plastic sachets of *a ijuana in his possession;. 7 7 7. The totalit0 of evidence p esented is convincin+ and points to appellant as bein+ en+a+ed in the sale of the ille+al d u+s. The testi*on0 of the p osecution 8itness identif0in+ the appellant to be a selle of ille+al d u+s appea s to be cate+o ical and unfab icated. No ill *otive on the pa t of :PO2 5o8aton; has been sho8n to ta nish his testi*on0. Such positive evidence ce tainl0 p evails ove *e e denial and alibi 8hich, if unsubstantiated b0 clea and convincin+ evidence, a e ne+ative and self-se vin+ un8o th0 of c edible 8ei+ht in la8. 3% The Cou t finds no eason to deviate f o* the factual findin+s of the t ial cou t and the Cou t of Appeals. It is a settled ule that factual findin+s of the t ial cou ts, includin+ thei assess*ent of the 8itnessesF c edibilit0, a e entitled to + eat 8ei+ht and espect b0 this Cou t, pa ticula l0 8hen the Cou t of Appeals affi * the findin+s. T ial cou ts a e in the best position to assess the 8itnessesF c edibilit0 and to app eciate thei t uthfulness, honest0 and cando . 36 In co*pa ison to the ove 8hel*in+ evidence of the p osecution, all that the appellant could *uste is the defense of denial and f a*e-up. Denial o f a*e-up, li/e alibi, has been vie8ed 8ith disfavo fo it can just as easil0 be concocted and is a co**on and standa d defense plo0 in *ost p osecutions fo violation of Dan+e ous D u+s Act. The defense of f a*e-up o denial in d u+ cases eEui es st on+ and convincin+ evidence because of the p esu*ption that the la8 enfo ce*ent a+encies acted in the e+ula pe fo *ance of thei official duties. 1a e denial of appellant cannot p evail ove the positive testi*on0 of the p osecution 8itness. )$ In People v. 'osialda)! citin+ People ! "odrigo,)" this Cou t

p onounced that once the p osecution ove co*es the p esu*ption of innocence b0 p ovin+ the ele*ents of the c i*e and the identit0 of the accused as pe pet ato be0ond easonable doubt, the bu den of evidence then shifts to the defense 8hich shall then test the st en+th of the p osecutionKs case eithe b0 sho8in+ that no c i*e 8as in fact co**itted o that the accused could not have co**itted o did not co**it the i*puted c i*e, o at the ve 0 least, b0 castin+ doubt on the +uilt of the accused.)2 In this case, it has been established be0ond doubt that the p osecution 8as able to p ove 8ith ce taint0 all the ele*ents of the c i*es cha +ed and the identit0 of the appellant afte he 8as positivel0 identified b0 the p osecution 8itness. Thus, appellantFs selfse vin+ asse tions unsuppo ted b0 an0 plausible p oof to bolste his alle+ations have no le+ to stand on. (is defense of denial o f a*eJ up *ust necessa il0 fail. To epeat, in cases involvin+ violations of Dan+e ous D u+s Act, c edence should be +iven to the na ation of the incident b0 the p osecution 8itnesses especiall0 8hen the0 a e police office s 8ho a e p esu*ed to have pe fo *ed thei duties in a e+ula *anne , unless the e is evidence to the cont a 0. .o eove , in the absence of p oof of *otive to falsel0 i*pute such a se ious c i*e a+ainst the appellant, the p esu*ption of e+ula it0 in the pe fo *ance of official dut0, as 8ell as the findin+s of the t ial cou t on the c edibilit0 of 8itnesses, shall p evail ove petitione Fs self-se vin+ and )# unco obo ated denial. This Cou t 8ill no8 dete *ine the penalties to be i*posed upon appellant. Section 3, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, p ovides fo the i*posable penalties fo ille+al sale of *a ijuana, thus9 S%,. 5. Sale, #rading, $dministration, Dispensation, Deli ery, Distribution and #ransportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals! - The penalt0 of life i*p ison*ent to death and a fine an+in+ f o* Bive hund ed thousand pesos ,P3$$,$$$.$$- to Ten *illion pesos ,P!$,$$$,$$$.$$shall be i*posed upon an0 pe son, 8ho, unless autho i<ed b0 la8,

shall sell, t ade, ad*iniste , dispense, delive , +ive a8a0 to anothe , dist ibute, dispatch in t ansit o t anspo t an0 dan+e ous d u+, includin+ an0 and all species of opiu* popp0 e+a dless of the Euantit0 and pu it0 involved, o shall act as a b o/e in an0 of such t ansactions. :E*phasis supplied;. B o* the afo e-Euoted p ovision, the sale of an0 dan+e ous d u+, li/e *a ijuana, e+a dless of the Euantit0 and pu it0 involved is punishable b0 life i*p ison*ent to death and a fine an+in+ f o* P3$$,$$$.$$ to P!$,$$$,$$$.$$. In li+ht of the effectivit0 of 'epublic Act No. 62#), othe 8ise /no8n as >An Act P ohibitin+ the I*position of Death Penalt0 in the Philippines,> the i*position of the sup e*e penalt0 of death has been p osc ibed. )3 ConseEuentl0, the penalt0 applicable to appellant shall onl0 be life i*p ison*ent and fine 8ithout eli+ibilit0 fo pa ole. Thus, this Cou t sustains the penalt0 i*posed b0 the lo8e cou ts in C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4$. Section !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, on the othe hand, e7p essl0 p ovides the penalt0 fo ille+al possession of *a ijuana, thus9 Sec. !!. Possession of Dan+e ous D u+s. J The penalt0 of life i*p ison*ent to death and a fine an+in+ f o* Bive hund ed thousand pesos ,P3$$,$$$.$$- to Ten *illion pesos ,P!$,$$$,$$$.$$shall be i*posed upon an0 pe son, 8ho, unless autho i<ed b0 la8, shall possess an0 dan+e ous d u+ in the follo8in+ Euantities, e+a dless of the de+ ee of pu it0 the eof9 7777 Othe 8ise, if the Euantit0 involved is less than the fo e+oin+ Euantities, the penalties shall be + aduated as follo8s9 ,!- 7 7 7 ,"- I*p ison*ent of t8ent0 ,"$- 0ea s and one ,!- da0 to life i*p ison*ent and a fine an+in+ f o* Bou hund ed thousand pesos ,P#$$,$$$.$$- to Bive hund ed thousand pesos ,P3$$,$$$.$$-, if the Euantities of dan+e ous d u+s a e five ,3- + a*s o *o e but less than ten ,!$- + a*s of opiu*, *o phine, he oin, cocaine o cocaine h0d ochlo ide, *a ijuana esin o *a ijuana esin oil,

*etha*pheta*ine h0d ochlo ide o >shabu,> o othe dan+e ous d u+s such as, but not li*ited to, .D.A o >ecstas0,> P.A, T.A, 5SD, &(1, and those si*ila l0 desi+ned o ne8l0 int oduced d u+s and thei de ivatives, 8ithout havin+ an0 the apeutic value o if the Euantit0 possessed is fa be0ond the apeutic eEui e*entsG o th ee hund ed ,2$$- + a*s o *o e but less than five hund ed ,3$$- + a*s of *a ijuana. :E*phasis supplied;. The afo esaid p ovision clea l0 states that the i*posable penalt0 fo ille+al possession of an0 dan+e ous d u+, li/e *a ijuana, 8ith a Euantit0 of five + a*s o *o e but less than !$ + a*s, is i*p ison*ent of "$ 0ea s and ! da0 to life i*p ison*ent and a fine an+in+ f o* P#$$,$$$.$$ to P3$$,$$$.$$. The p osecution in C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4! established be0ond easonable doubt that appellant, 8ithout an0 le+al autho it0, had in his possession 3.)$ + a*s of *a ijuana. The efo e, the penalt0 i*posed upon appellant b0 the lo8e cou ts fo ille+al possession of *a ijuana is not p ope as the said penalt0 8as onl0 fo ille+al possession of *a ijuana havin+ a Euantit0 of less than five + a*s.
%&'phi%

Bollo8in+ the penalt0 p ovided fo unde Section !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, fo ille+al possession of five + a*s o *o e but less than !$ + a*s of *a ijuana, this Cou t, thus, i*posed upon appellant the penalt0 of i*p ison*ent of "$ 0ea s and one da0 and a fine of P#$$,$$$.$$. The Indete *inate Sentence 5a8 finds no application in this case as the penalt0 of i*p ison*ent p ovided fo ille+al possession of five + a*s o *o e but less than !$ + a*s of *a ijuana is indivisible. =(E'EBO'E, p e*ises conside ed, the Decision of the Cou t of Appeals in CA-&.'. C'-(C No. $")#" dated "# Ap il "$$% findin+ he ein appellant +uilt0 be0ond easonable doubt of violation of Sections 3 and !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3 is he eb0 ABBI'.ED 8ith .ODIBICATION that fo the c i*e of ille+al possession of *a ijuana in violation of Section !!, A ticle II of 'epublic Act No. 6!)3, doc/eted as C i*inal Case No. $)-!%4!, appellant is he eb0 sentenced to suffe the penalt0 of i*p ison*ent of "$ 0ea s and ! da0 and a fine of P#$$,$$$.$$.

SO O'DE'ED. JOSE PORT!GAL PERE"Associate Austice