G.R. No. 185166 ; January 26, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA y SUELLO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On September 25, 2006, based on a report from the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) and an informant that the appellant was selling marijuana in Kalayaan Avenue, Barangay Singkamas, Makati City, the Special Anti Illegal Drug-Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of Makati formed a buy-bust team. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as evidenced by a Pre-Operational Report and a Certificate of Coordination. Police Officer 3 Eusebio Lowaton, Jr. (PO3 Lowaton) was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given two marked Fifty Peso bills totaling ₱100.00. At the target area, the informant introduced PO3 Lowaton to appellant as a buyer. Appellant asked how much marijuana PO3 Lowaton wanted, and upon being told ₱100.00 worth, appellant took one plastic sachet of marijuana from his pocket and handed it to PO3 Lowaton, who in turn gave the marked money. After the sale, PO3 Lowaton gave the pre-arranged signal and arrested appellant. A search incidental to the arrest yielded two more plastic sachets of marijuana from appellant. PO3 Lowaton marked the sold sachet with “EBL” and the two recovered sachets with “EBL-1” and “EBL-2.” An inventory was conducted at the place of arrest in appellant’s presence, as shown by an Acknowledgment Receipt. The seized items were photographed, sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, and tested positive for marijuana. An after-operation Spot Report was sent to PDEA. Appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . At trial, the prosecution presented PO3 Lowaton as its lone witness and dispensed with the testimony of a MADAC operative after a stipulation. The defense presented appellant, who claimed he was arrested while sleeping in his house by MADAC operatives looking for a certain “Richard,” and that he was framed when he could not provide information.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana, thereby upholding the conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the appellant’s conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. For illegal sale under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the prosecution 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 testimony of PO3 Lowaton, the poseur-buyer, was credible and detailed the buy-bust transaction. For illegal possession under Section 11, the prosecution proved: (1) the appellant was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the appellant freely and consciously possessed the drug. The two additional sachets were validly seized during a search incidental to a lawful arrest. The Court found the chain of custody of the seized drugs was sufficiently established through testimony on the marking, inventory, and laboratory examination, despite the defense’s claim of non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 regarding the presence of certain witnesses during inventory. The Court ruled that minor procedural lapses did not undermine the integrity of the seized items, as the integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was accorded great respect. Accordingly, the penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed: for illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 06-1870), life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine; for illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 06-1871), an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months, and a ₱300,000.00 fine.