GR 210656; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210656 . December 07, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSARIO BAYOT MAHINAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on June 25, 2005, a police team in Talisay City, Cebu, conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant Rosario Bayot Mahinay based on an asset’s tip. A designated poseur-buyer approached Mahinay and handed a marked P100 bill in exchange for ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Mahinay, recovered the marked money from him, and took custody of the marijuana sticks. The seized items were marked at the scene and later examined by a forensic chemist, who confirmed they were marijuana. The defense presented a starkly different version. Mahinay testified that he was merely waiting for his daughter when two unknown persons approached and handed him a P100 bill, which he immediately returned. He claimed police then arrived, arrested him and another fleeing individual, and that the evidence was planted.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs).
RULING
The Supreme Court 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 of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly, clearly established the consummated sale. The Court found the defense of denial and frame-up inherently weak, as it was uncorroborated and could not overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The Court also ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was sufficiently established. While the poseur-buyer was not presented, the testimony of the team leader who received the drugs from him immediately after the sale and personally marked them was deemed sufficient to account for the crucial first link in the chain. The subsequent links—the submission to the crime laboratory and the forensic examination—were duly documented and uncontested. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were thus preserved.