G.R. No. 186131; December 14, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENJAMIN AMANSEC y DONA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On June 18, 2003, accused-appellant Benjamin Amansec y Dona was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City with violations of Section 11 (Illegal Possession) and Section 5 (Illegal Sale) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on June 15, 2003. The prosecution evidence, primarily from Police Officers Alfredo Mabutol, Jr. and Ronald Pascua, established that a team was formed after a confidential informant reported Amansec’s drug activities. PO1 Mabutol acted as poseur-buyer, using a marked ₱100 bill to purchase shabu from Amansec at his residence. During the transaction, another buyer, Jerome Pintis, arrived and also bought shabu. After the exchange, Mabutol gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to the arrest of Pintis and Amansec, who attempted to flee. The buy-bust money and two plastic sachets (one from the sale to Mabutol and another found on Amansec) were recovered. A third sachet was recovered from Pintis. Forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride. Amansec denied the charges, claiming the police officers entered his room, searched it, and brought him to the precinct where they asked him to name a big-time drug pusher as a “pamalit-ulo.”

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s conviction of accused-appellant Benjamin Amansec for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found the prosecution successfully proved 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 police officers were credible, consistent, and constituted sufficient proof of the illegal transaction. The defense of denial and frame-up was inherently weak and unsupported by evidence of any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. The Court also held that the non-presentation of the confidential informant was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as his testimony would have been merely corroborative. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, as the chain of custody was shown through the marking of the items at the scene, their turnover to the investigator, and subsequent forensic examination. The RTC’s penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) was affirmed. However, the RTC acquitted Amansec of the charge for illegal possession under Section 11, as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for that specific charge.