Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > February 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 192786 : February 21, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ANANIAS CUNA Y BUSA, ALSO KNOWN AS "NANI" :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 February 2011 which reads as follows: 

G.R. No. 192786 (People of the Philippines v. Ananias Cuna y Busa, also known as "Nani"). - In two separate Informations, appellant Ananias B. Cuna was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

The following facts were established:

At 11:00 p.m. of March 16, 2006, a police asset went to the office of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Police Station in Taguig City and informed P/SInsp. Eufronio Obong, Jr. about the illegal drug activities of a certain "Nani" at Purok 11, South Daang Hari, Bagong Tanyag, Taguig City. P/SInsp. Obong then formed a buy-bust team composed of eight (8) police officers, with PO2 Ruchyl Gasid acting as poseur-buyer. It was agreed that PO2 Gasid would scratch his head as pre-arranged signal that he had completed the purchase. PO2 Gasid was given two P100-bills to be used as buy-bust money, which he marked with "RNG." Before the entrapment operation, the buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency which issued a certificate of coordination dated March 16, 2006.

At 5:30 a.m. of the following day, March 17, 2006, the buy-bust team and the police asset proceeded to the designated place. PO2 Gasid and the police asset walked toward the house of appellant. PO1 Rommel Ragos and the other members of the team positioned themselves at a distance of 8 to 10 meters where they could see PO2 Gasid and the police asset. Upon reaching appellant's house, the police asset introduced PO2 Gasid to appellant as a friend from the province and a prospective buyer of "shabu." Appellant asked, "How much?'' PO2 Gasid replied, "halagang dalawang daan." Appellant then pulled out from his right pocket two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and asked PO2 Gasid to choose one. PO2 Gasid made his choice and handed the marked P100-bills to appellant. Upon receiving one sachet from appellant, PO2 Gasid made the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head. His teammates immediately apprehended appellant. PO1 Ragos arrested and handcuffed appellant, while PO2 Gasid frisked appellant and was able to retrieve one more plastic sachet of "shabu" and two marked P100-bills from his right pocket. The plastic sachet of "shabu" bought by PO2 Gasid was marked by PO2 Gasid with "ABC" and the plastic sachet of "shabu" recovered from appellant's right pocket was marked with "ABC-1." The markings were the initials of appellant and were made "when PO1 Ragos came� to the scene of the buy-bust.

Appellant was then brought to the police station for further investigation. There, PO2 Gasid made an inventory of the items seized from appellant. On the same day, PO2 Gasid turned over the seized items to the investigator, PO1 Alexander Saez, who requested a laboratory examination of the said items.

The seized items were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The examined substance yielded positive for "shabu," a dangerous drug.

Appellant pleaded not guilty. He claimed that the crimes charged were fabricated by the police officers who wanted to extort money from him.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Joint Decision dated May 18, 2008 which reads: 

WHEREFORE, and the foregoing considered, the Court finds that: 

1. Accused Ananias Cuna is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.05 gram of shabu, or methylamphethamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without authority in violation of Section 5, 1^st  paragraph, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 14915-D-TG and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 and to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law; and, 

2. Accused Ananias Cuna is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of possessing a total of 0.05 gram of shabu, or methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without authority in violation of Section 11, 3^rd paragraph, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 14916-D-TG and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as minimum, up to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to pay a fine of P300,000.00 and to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law. 

With costs de officio. 

SO ORDERED.^[1]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in toto the RTC decision.^[2]

Appellant elevated the case to this Court through a notice of appeal. The Court required both parties to submit, if they so desire, their respective supplemental briefs; however, both manifested that they are adopting their respective briefs before the CA.

The petition has no merit. The prosecution's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crimes charged.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.^[3]: On the other hand, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (I) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.^[4]

The presence of the elements for both crimes has been proven primarily by the testimonies of PO2 Gasid, as corroborated by PO1 Ragos. PO2 Gasid, who acted as the poseur-buyer, categorically testified about the buy-bust operation and completely narrated the events that transpired from the time he was introduced by the informant to appellant as the buyer of shabu, the actual exchange of the marked money and the sachet containing the shabu, the arrest of the appellant, and finally, the frisking of appellant's body where they found another sachet of shabu. Moreover, the prosecution, through the report of the PNP Crime Lab, established that the substance recovered from appellant was indeed shabu.

Appellant's claim that the crimes charged were merely fabricated must therefore fail, Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.^[5]

Appellant failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. The testimonies of his daughter and his wife were not sufficient to overturn the positive testimonies of the police officers. Moreover, it was not shown that the police officers were impelled by ill-motives to testify against appellant.

Finally, this Court finds no merit in appellant's contention that the police officers failed to comply with the guidelines on the chain of custody and disposition of the seized sachet of shabu as provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The testimonies of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation and the police investigator who received the seized items showed that the items were properly marked and inventoried. Noncompliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.^[6]

WHEREFORE, the court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated April 7, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03488, finding appellant Ananias Cuna y Busa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and AFFIRMS said Decision. Peralta, J., no part as his spouse is the ponente of the assailed CA decision; Velasco, Jr., J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 18 August 2010.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

 

Endnotes:

---

^[1] CA rollo, p. 28.

^[2] Rollo, p. 31. 

^[3] People v. Santos, G.R. No. 176735, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 578. 592. 

^[4] People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828. 846. 

^[5] People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 443-444. 

^[6] Id. at 436-437.