G.R. No. 206593 , November 10, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ramonito B. Asignar, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Separate informations were filed against accused-appellant Ramonito B. Asignar before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City for violations of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The cases were consolidated. For Section 5 (Criminal Case No. CBU 70735), he was charged with selling one heat-sealed transparent plastic packet of 0.02 gram of shabu containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride to a poseur buyer on August 24, 2004. For Section 11 (Criminal Case No. CBU 70733), he was charged with possessing three transparent plastic packets containing traces of shabu. For Section 12 (Criminal Case No. CBU 70734), he was charged with possessing two disposable lighters used as an improvised burner and one plastic paraphernalia for repacking shabu. The RTC convicted him on all charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine for Section 5, twelve years and one day to thirteen years imprisonment and a fine for Section 11, and six months and one day to one year imprisonment and a fine for Section 12. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The defense of extortion raised by the accused-appellant was uncorroborated. The parties manifested they would adopt their briefs from the CA and file no supplemental briefs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for violations of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of shabu: the identity of the buyer (PO1 Solana as poseur-buyer) and seller (accused-appellant), the object of the sale, the consideration, and the delivery. The seized item, which tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, was presented as part of the corpus delicti. For illegal possession, the prosecution proved accused-appellant was in possession of prohibited drugs not authorized by law, and he freely and consciously possessed them. The defense of extortion was disfavored and uncorroborated, as accused-appellant failed to present witnesses like his mother-in-law or nieces/nephews. The findings of fact by the trial court, affirmed by the CA and supported by evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect. No cogent reason was presented to reverse the lower courts’ findings.