THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208039. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANNY CORDERO Y CODILLO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 21, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208039 (People of the Philippines v. Danny Cordero y Codillo). — The Public Prosecutor charged the accused Danny Cordero y Codillo (Cordero) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig with the violations of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 in Criminal Case 16125-D and Section 11 of the same law in Criminal Case 16126-D.
PO2 Jowel Briones testified that on January 31, 2008 an informant tipped their office that a certain alias Abar, subsequently identified as accused Cordero, was selling illegal drugs in Reposar St., Upper Bicutan, Taguig City. 1 After confirming the report, the police formed a buy-bust team and designated PO2 Briones as the poseur buyer. He and the informant approached Cordero as he stood in Reposar St., asked him for shabu, and gave him P200.00 as payment. In turn, Cordero got four plastic sachets from his pocket and handed one over to the police officer. 2
When PO2 Briones was about to call in his back up officers, two other men approached Cordero and bought shabu from him, too. As soon as this happened, PO2 Briones quickly signalled for help. Cordero managed to run into an alley but the officers gave chase anal captured him. 3 On being frisked, they found three more plastic sachets of shabu on him. PO2 Briones marked the sachet that he earlier bought with DCC 01-31-2008 and the three others with DCC-1, DCC-2, and DCC-3, respectively. 4 On being tested, they contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 5 SPO2 Luisito Buquid, one of the police back ups, corroborated PO2 Briones' testimony.
For his part, accused Cordero denied selling shabu to PO2 Briones. He testified that on January 31, 2008 he and his wife were at home when the police forcibly entered their house and frisked the couple. 6 When the police found nothing on them, they handcuffed and brought Cordero to the municipal office in Taguig. 7
After trial, the RTC found Cordero guilty of both charges and imposed on him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case 16125-D and imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case 16126-D. 8 The RTC held that the prosecution established the elements of the two crimes and corpus delicti. It found the testimony of PO2 Briones credible.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed 9 the RTC Decision. Like the RTC, the CA ruled that the prosecution established the corpus delicti of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Despite certain deviations from the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the CA ruled that the integrity of the drug had been preserved. CTSDAI
Accused Cordero points out that, in violation of R.A. 9165, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime 10 and the corpus delicti. 11 But that is not true. The prosecution proved both. The testimony of PO2 Briones, as corroborated by SPO2 Buquid, showed that the drugs they confiscated from Cordero were the ones presented in court. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court is constrained to agree with the CA that PO2 Briones' testimony can be believed since it held together and since no ill motive had been attributed to him.
Lastly, the lack of Department of Justice and media representatives is not an indispensable requirement. What is important is that the integrity of the drug had been preserved. The markings made by PO2 Briones of the seized articles and the established chain of custody ensured their integrity.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 15, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04672.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. TSN, March 23, 2009, p. 6.
2. Id. at 15.
3. Id. at 16.
4. Id. at 18-20.
5. Physical Science Report D-093-08S, records, p. 16.
6. TSN, February 22, 2010, p. 4.
7. Id. at 5-6.
8. Decision dated September 14, 2010, records, pp. 131-134.
9. Decision dated August 15, 2012, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC 04672.
10. In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) 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. People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809, 816.
11. People v. Ditona, G.R. No. 189841, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 835, 839.