G.R. No. 182010 ; August 25, 2010
SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Susan Esquillo was convicted for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for possession of 0.1224 gram of shabu. The prosecution evidence, primarily from PO1 Alvin Cruzin, established that on December 10, 2002, while on surveillance for a snatcher, he observed petitioner placing a small plastic sachet into a cigarette case. Upon approach, petitioner attempted to flee but was restrained. PO1 Cruzin confiscated the sachet, marked it with her initials, and had it examined by the NBI, which confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride. Petitioner’s urine test also yielded positive results for the same drug.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Petitioner claimed that policemen in civilian clothes barged into her home while she was sick, inquired about a certain “Ryan,” and forcibly brought her to the police station where they later claimed to have recovered the drugs from her. She alleged the evidence was planted in an extortion attempt. Her daughter and a friend corroborated this account, testifying that the officers never stated the reason for her custody.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal possession: (1) the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The positive identification by PO1 Cruzin, coupled with the conclusive NBI forensic report, constituted sufficient proof. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted that allegations of planting must be proven with strong evidence, which petitioner failed to provide, as her denial could not prevail over the affirmative testimony of the police officer.
Regarding the penalty, the Court corrected the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. For violations of R.A. No. 9165 where the penalty is imposed by a special law, the minimum prison term should be within the range of the penalty prescribed by the law. The law prescribes imprisonment of twelve years and one day to twenty years. Thus, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day, as minimum, to fourteen years, as maximum, while affirming the fine. The petition was denied.