GR 199874; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199874 , July 23, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Peter Fang y Gamboa a.k.a. “Fritz” and Jefferson Fang y Peralta, Accused, Peter Fang y Gamboa a.k.a. “Fritz,” Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Peter Fang y Gamboa was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The conviction stemmed from a buy-bust operation on August 7, 2004, where PO2 Paulino Lubos, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased two small sachets of shabu from appellant for ₱500.00. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, back-up operatives arrested appellant and recovered the buy-bust money and another sachet of shabu from him. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was sleeping when armed men barged into his house, took cash and his cellphone, and arrested him and his son without cause. The RTC found appellant guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of shabu were duly established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the drugs and payment. The positive testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO2 Lubos, detailing the transaction was credible and corroborated by the forensic chemist’s report and the presentation of the marked money. The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. Appellant’s claim of non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the physical inventory of seized items was unavailing. The Court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, as the chain of custody was established through testimonies that the items were marked, inventoried, and transmitted to the crime laboratory. Minor procedural lapses did not negate the evidence of the sale. The penalty of life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine was correctly imposed under the law.