Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 185165 - (People of the Philippines v. Jose Macawili y Paller). - We resolve the appeal filed by accused Jose Macawili y Paller (appellant) from the January 23, 2008 decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 02183.

In a decision^[2] dated March 22, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 135, Makati City, convicted the appellant of illegal sale and possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.^[3] The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of Police Officer I (PO1) Voltaire Esguerra (poseur-buyer) and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) Operative Richard Prior (back-up), who belonged to the arresting team that conducted the buy bust operation against the appellant. It rejected the appellant's self-serving defense of denial.

For the sale of shabu, the RTC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). For the possession of a total of two point eighty nine (2.89) grams of shabu, the RTC imposed upon the appellant an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00). The RTC also ordered the appellant to pay the costs of suit.

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling. The CA agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duly should be accorded to them. It rejected the appellant's claim that the lack of a physical inventory and photograph of the shabu tainted the prosecution's evidence because the police officers properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling 

We dismiss the appeal.

We find no reason to reverse the RTC's findings on the appellant's guilt on the crimes charged against him, less so in the present case where the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling.

In his appeal, the appellant, insists that the police officers' non-compliance with the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized shabu under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is fatal to the prosecution's case.

We do not agree. In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu,"what is material x x x is x x x proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti."^[4]  In this case, we find that the appellant's act of selling shabu  was sufficiently proven by the prosecution through the straightforward and credible testimony of PO1 Esguerra. He positively identified the appellant as the one who gave him the plastic sachet containing, zero point zero six (0.06) gram of shabu in exchange for the ten (10) pieces of fifty-peso (P50.00) bills used as marked money.^[5] 

For the charge of illegal possession, we similarly find the appellant guilty thereof. In a prosecution for illegal possession of shabu, it must be shown that "(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug."^[6] In this case, prosecution witnesses PO1 Esguerra and MADAC Operative Prior positively identified the appellant as having possessed two point eighty nine (2.89) grams of shabu.^[7] 

Regarding the appellant's contention, we held in People v. Campos^[8] that the failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and to photograph the confiscated items is not fatal to the prosecution's cause for as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the plastic sachets containing shabu presented in court, marked with the initials "VAE," were the very same specimen seized from the appellant on the day of his arrest^[9]  and brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination.^[10] 

For the penalties imposed, we find them to be within the ranges provided by law. Under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, illegal sale of dangerous drugs is punishable by life imprisonment to death^[11] and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000.000.00). Under Section 11 of the same law, illegal possession of dangerous drugs, with quantities of less than five (5) grams, is punishable by imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00). cralaw

WHEREFORE, the decision dated January 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 02183 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo; rollo, pp. 2, 20.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 05-1674 and 05-1675; CA rollo, pp. 38-43. 

^[3] Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002." 

^[4] People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011. See also People of the Philippines v. Arnel Zapata y Canilao, G.R. No. 184054, October 19, 2011. 

^[5] TSN, November 14, 2005, pp. 2-19. 

^[6] People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003). 

^[7] TSN, November 7, 2005, pp. 3-19; TSN, November 14, 2005, pp. 2-19. 

^[8] G.R. No. 186526, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 462, 468. 

^[9] TSN, November 7, 2005, pp. 6-10, 17-19; TSN, November 14, 2005, pp. 7-9, 14-19. 

^[10] TSN, November 18, 2005, pp. 2-3. 

^[11] The imposition of the death penalty has been proscribed with the effectivity of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."