January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
Name[G.R. No. 184605 : January 14, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ELVIRA ESTEBAN Y MASTRILI :
[G.R. No. 184605 : January 14, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ELVIRA ESTEBAN Y MASTRILI
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 14 January 2009
G.R. No. 184605: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELVIRA ESTEBAN y MASTRILI
This is an appeal from the Decision dated 12 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02378 finding appellant Elvira Esteban y Mastrili (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165 for selling 0.17 gram of shabu.
As can be gleaned from the evidence of the prosecution, the following are the antecedent facts. A confidential informant went to the Taguig Police Station reporting that a certain Elvie is engaged in the proliferation of illegal drugs. Apparently, this Elvie had long been included in the target list of drug pushers based on the report made by the Barangay Anti-Illegal Drug Office Council. A buy-bust team was formed. PO2 Roderick Taca (Taca), a police officer assigned to the Narcotics Operative of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force of the Taguig Police Station, and his co-police officer SPO2 Pablo Agawin (Agawin) were dispatched by their team leader to conduct a buy-bust operation. Taca was designated as the poseur-buyer while Agawin was his back-up officer. The boodle money of P1,000 was pre-marked. Taca and Agawin conducted a surveillance on the target area and confirmed that Elvie was indeed engaged in selling shabu. On 16 December 2003, Taca and the confidential informer proceeded to the target place to look for Elvie. When Elvie saw them, she readily asked "Ilan Ba?" to which Taca replied "Ate, pakitapatan mo tong isang libo." Elvie pulled out a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance called shabu from her right pocket and simultaneously asked for the payment. After Elvie handed to Taca the sachet, the latter gave her the boodle money. At this instance, Taca took off his wrist watch which was his signal to his back-up police officer to make the arrest. Elvie, who turned out to be the appellant, was informed of her constitutional rights.
An Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 was filed against appellant for knowingly selling 0.17 gram of shabu. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 267, Pasig City rendered judgment on 29 May 2006 finding appellant guilty as charged. She was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a "fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00)."
On appeal, the CA "affirmed in toto" the trial court's decision.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we find no reversible error in the CA's appreciation of the evidence and affirm the finding of guilt of appellant. The CA correctly ruled that there is no fixed procedure for conducting buy-bust operations. What is material is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked or boodle money consummate the transaction. The testimony of the police officer who, categorically and without ill-motive, positively identified appellant as the person who was in possession of the plastic sachet of shabu and who accepted the payment deserves weight and credence as against appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up.
As regards the penalty imposed, we deem it necessary to clarify that, in the dispositive portion of its Decision, the CA "affirmed in toto" the judgment of the trial court, but the CA erroneously stated, three times, in the body of its decision (in pages, 1, 6 and 18 thereof) the payment of "fine of P5,000,000.00" which is different from the fine imposed by the trial court. This should be corrected to mean the payment of fine of P500,000. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment, as affirmed by the CA, and the payment of fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000).
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated 12 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02378, finding appellant Elvira Esteban y Mastrili guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing her to suffer life imprisonment. She is further ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.
The confirmation of confinement of accused-appellant at the Correctional Institution for Women is NOTED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 184605: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELVIRA ESTEBAN y MASTRILI
This is an appeal from the Decision dated 12 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02378 finding appellant Elvira Esteban y Mastrili (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165 for selling 0.17 gram of shabu.
As can be gleaned from the evidence of the prosecution, the following are the antecedent facts. A confidential informant went to the Taguig Police Station reporting that a certain Elvie is engaged in the proliferation of illegal drugs. Apparently, this Elvie had long been included in the target list of drug pushers based on the report made by the Barangay Anti-Illegal Drug Office Council. A buy-bust team was formed. PO2 Roderick Taca (Taca), a police officer assigned to the Narcotics Operative of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force of the Taguig Police Station, and his co-police officer SPO2 Pablo Agawin (Agawin) were dispatched by their team leader to conduct a buy-bust operation. Taca was designated as the poseur-buyer while Agawin was his back-up officer. The boodle money of P1,000 was pre-marked. Taca and Agawin conducted a surveillance on the target area and confirmed that Elvie was indeed engaged in selling shabu. On 16 December 2003, Taca and the confidential informer proceeded to the target place to look for Elvie. When Elvie saw them, she readily asked "Ilan Ba?" to which Taca replied "Ate, pakitapatan mo tong isang libo." Elvie pulled out a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance called shabu from her right pocket and simultaneously asked for the payment. After Elvie handed to Taca the sachet, the latter gave her the boodle money. At this instance, Taca took off his wrist watch which was his signal to his back-up police officer to make the arrest. Elvie, who turned out to be the appellant, was informed of her constitutional rights.
An Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 was filed against appellant for knowingly selling 0.17 gram of shabu. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 267, Pasig City rendered judgment on 29 May 2006 finding appellant guilty as charged. She was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a "fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00)."
On appeal, the CA "affirmed in toto" the trial court's decision.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we find no reversible error in the CA's appreciation of the evidence and affirm the finding of guilt of appellant. The CA correctly ruled that there is no fixed procedure for conducting buy-bust operations. What is material is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked or boodle money consummate the transaction. The testimony of the police officer who, categorically and without ill-motive, positively identified appellant as the person who was in possession of the plastic sachet of shabu and who accepted the payment deserves weight and credence as against appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up.
As regards the penalty imposed, we deem it necessary to clarify that, in the dispositive portion of its Decision, the CA "affirmed in toto" the judgment of the trial court, but the CA erroneously stated, three times, in the body of its decision (in pages, 1, 6 and 18 thereof) the payment of "fine of P5,000,000.00" which is different from the fine imposed by the trial court. This should be corrected to mean the payment of fine of P500,000. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment, as affirmed by the CA, and the payment of fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000).
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated 12 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02378, finding appellant Elvira Esteban y Mastrili guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing her to suffer life imprisonment. She is further ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.
The confirmation of confinement of accused-appellant at the Correctional Institution for Women is NOTED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
