GR 203433; (November, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203433 ; November 27, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FAISAL LOKS y PELONYO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Faisal Loks was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the sale of 1.300 grams of shabu. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on August 2, 2006, in Quiapo, Manila. SPO1 Jerry Velasco acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased the shabu from Loks for ₱3,000.00. Upon consummation of the sale, SPO1 Velasco gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to Loks’s arrest and the recovery of the marked money. The seized item was marked, submitted for laboratory examination, and confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
For his defense, Loks denied the sale, claiming he was mistakenly arrested while selling pirated discs. He alleged that the police officers realized they had the wrong person but proceeded to charge him nonetheless. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this final appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the illicit drug and payment. The testimonies of the police officers, particularly the poseur-buyer, were found credible and constituted direct evidence of the transaction. The Court reiterated the doctrine that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight, as it is in the best position to observe demeanor.
Loks’s defense of denial and frame-up was deemed inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers. The Court further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. While the prosecution did not perfectly comply with the witness requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the inventory, such procedural lapse was not fatal. The Court explained that non-compliance does not automatically void the seizure, provided the integrity and identity of the evidence are established, as they were in this case through an unbroken chain of custody. The buy-bust operation was validly conducted, and the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven to a moral certainty.