GR 208015; (October, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 208015 October 14, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RONWALDO LAFARAN y ACLAN, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Ronwaldo Lafaran y Aclan was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that based on reports from barangay officials, a buy-bust operation was conducted on June 25, 2006, in Lipa City. A police team, composed of SPO3 Danilo Yema, SPO2 Whency Aro, and PO3 Cleofe Pera, used an asset as a poseur-buyer. The asset, using marked money, met the accused and exchanged the money for a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the police officers apprehended the accused. SPO2 Aro marked the seized sachet at the scene, and PO3 Pera recovered the marked money from the accused’s hand. The seized item was forwarded to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented a denial, claiming the accused was merely selling a cellphone when he was apprehended. The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of shabu despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery and payment. The testimonies of the police officers positively identified the accused as the seller and detailed the transaction. The Court also ruled that the chain of custody was sufficiently established. The marking of the seized sachet at the scene, the preparation of required documents, and the stipulated turnover of the specimen to the crime laboratory ensured its integrity from seizure to examination. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 was affirmed as mandated by law.