G.R. No. 177570; January 19, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Nelida Dequina y Dimapanan, Joselito Jundoc y Japitana & Nora Jingabo y Cruz, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Nelida Dequina, Joselito Jundoc, and Nora Jingabo were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended, for selling, delivering, or transporting 32,995 grams of marijuana. On September 29, 1999, PO3 Wilfredo Masanggue and SPO1 Anthony Blanco, acting on a tip, proceeded to the corner of Juan Luna and Raxabago Streets in Tondo, Manila. At around 9:00 a.m., they saw a taxi from which a man and two women, each carrying a black traveling bag, alighted. The trio matched the informant’s description. As the police trailed them, Dequina noticed the patrol car, walked hurriedly, and dropped her bag, causing its zipper to open and revealing bundles of dried leaves wrapped in plastic. The officers apprehended all three accused and inspected the other two bags, finding similar contents. The accused and the bags were brought to the Western Police District Headquarters. Investigator PO3 Eduardo Pama marked the bags and their contents: “NDD” (Dequina’s bag with 11 bricks), “JJJ” (Jundoc’s bag with 11 bricks), and “NCJ” (Jingabo’s bag with 11 bricks). The items were submitted to the NBI for examination. Forensic Chemist George de Lara confirmed that all specimens were positive for marijuana, with total weights of 10,915.0 grams, 11,010.0 grams, and 11,070.0 grams, respectively. The accused-appellants denied the charges, claiming they were framed.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, in relation to Section 21, of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants. The Court found that all elements of the crime of illegal sale and delivery of marijuana were established: (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 police officers’ testimonies were consistent and credible, detailing the buy-bust operation and the apprehension. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was preserved, as the bags were properly marked, turned over to the investigator, and subjected to laboratory examination, which confirmed they contained marijuana. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence. The Court modified the penalty. Since the offense involved 32,995 grams of marijuana, far exceeding the 750-gram threshold for the imposition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659, and considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua. The Court also affirmed the award of damages.