G.R. No. 229507 , August 6, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DOMINGO ASPA, JR. y RASIMO, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 2, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Domingo Aspa, Jr. in Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, based on a confidential informant’s report. PO1 Mark Anthony Italin acted as the poseur-buyer. At the target area, the informant asked Aspa for marijuana, to which Aspa responded affirmatively and handed over three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing dried marijuana leaves. In exchange, PO1 Italin gave Aspa the marked buy-bust money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Aspa was arrested. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the scene in the presence of Aspa, a media representative, and a barangay official. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was marijuana weighing 7.8471 grams.
Aspa presented a different version, claiming he was merely a tricycle driver. He alleged that a fellow driver asked him for money to buy marijuana. Upon the driver’s return, he gave Aspa the change and the marijuana sachets. Shortly after, Aspa claimed he was accosted and strangled by a police officer who then framed him for selling the drugs. He denied any involvement in a sale transaction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Aspa’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously reviewed the records and found 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 testimony of PO1 Italin, the poseur-buyer, was clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the transaction. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officer. The Court also upheld the integrity of the seized drugs. The chain of custody was substantially complied with, as the items were immediately marked at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses under the law. The prescribed witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165—an elected public official and a representative from the media—were present during the inventory and photography. The forensic chemist then received the properly transmitted specimens, which tested positive for marijuana. The minor discrepancy in the police officer’s rank designation in the report was deemed inconsequential to the case’s outcome. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) was affirmed, with the correction that the phrase “without eligibility for parole” be deleted, as it is superfluous for the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.