GR 188345; (December, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188345 ; December 10, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CATALINO DULAY y CADIENTE, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Catalino Dulay was charged with violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 15 (illegal use) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on September 23, 2003, in Makati City. Based on a tip, a team was formed with PO1 Jose Guadamor as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to Mabini Street where the informant introduced Guadamor to alias “Lino” (the accused). After the accused asked how much he would buy, Guadamor handed over two hundred pesos as buy-bust money. In exchange, the accused drew two plastic sachets from his pocket and handed them to Guadamor. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the backup officers arrested the accused. The seized sachets were marked at the scene and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain 0.04 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The defense presented a different version, claiming the accused was framed. Dulay testified that he was forcibly taken from his home by men looking for someone named “Allan.” He alleged he was brought to a barangay headquarters and then to the Drug Enforcement Unit, where he was shown the sachets and his money was taken. He claimed the operation was orchestrated by MADAC operatives with whom he had a prior quarrel.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of the accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the poseur-buyer and the back-up officers were found to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to prove the transaction occurred. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak, especially in light of the clear and positive identification by the police officers involved in the legitimate buy-bust operation.
The Court also addressed the accused’s plea for a penalty reduction due to the minuscule quantity (0.04 grams) of shabu involved. It ruled that Section 5 of R.A. 9165 imposes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine, regardless of the quantity and purity of the illegal drug involved. The law’s plain text states the penalty shall be imposed “regardless of the quantity and purity involved.” Therefore, the Court was constrained by the explicit mandate of the law and could not exercise judicial leniency to reduce the penalty. The penalties imposed by the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were upheld in toto.