SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196967. March 31, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JOEL BUL-LALAYAO A.K.A. "ANNAWA", respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 31 March 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 196967 — (People of the Philippines, petitioner v. Joel Bul-lalayao a.k.a. "Annawa", respondent). — We resolve the appeal filed by accused Joel Bul-lalayao (accused) from the January 20, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04082. 1
On July 23, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte, rendered a Joint Judgment convicting the accused of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Section 5 and Section 11, Article 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, respectively. 2 The RTC found the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses credible and thus ruled that there was a valid buy-bust operation. The RTC also rejected the claim that there was improper handling of the seized items.
The RTC sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of one million five hundred thousand pesos (P1,500,000.00) for the crime of illegal sale of shabu. On the illegal possession of shabu, the RTC imposed a sentence ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a fine of four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
On appeal to the CA, the RTC's judgment of conviction was affirmed. We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal for lack of merit.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, "what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti." 3 In this case, the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of the crime through the testimonies of the buy-bust operatives and the informant who acted as the poseur-buyer. While the polio officers were strategically positioned around the informant's house, the accused arrived and headed straight to the informant to give the shabu. The informant then handed the marked money to the accused before giving the pre-arranged signal. This prompted the police officers to reveal themselves and arrest the accused. When the accused was frisked, the police officers retrieved the drugs along with the marked money, thus catching the accused in flagrante delicto. The shabu subject of the sale was brought to and duly identified in court. CDTHSI
We have repeatedly held that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for the purpose of apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. 4 We once more affirm the effectiveness of this mode of appeal provided the measures for validity of the arrest and the proper handling of the seized evidence are observed, all of which have been satisfied in the present case.
On the issue of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 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. 5 It is noted that the prosecution convincingly established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of three (3) plastic sachets captaining shabu. Undoubtedly, the accused is not authorized by law to possess it.
The accused next claims that the integrity of the seized specimens has not been preserved due to improper compliance of the chain of custody under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. An examination of the records of the case would reveal that, on the contrary, the police operatives immediately prepared an inventory, which the accused duly signed after the drugs were seized. These were then delivered to Police Inspector Valeriano Laya at the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office in San Fernando City, La Union for laboratory examination. 6 Other than the bare assertion of the accused of a broken chain of custody in the handling of the seized items, he failed to present any other evidence to prove his claim. The rule remains that as between the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, the positive evidence prevails. 7
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 20, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04082 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Michael P. Elbinias; rollo, pp. 2-22.
2. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
3. People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 599.
4. People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 85 (2000).
5. People v. Hajili and Unday, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003).
6. Rollo, p. 17.
7. People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008.