THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233650. February 19, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LEROY MANAIG y PESITO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 19, 2018, which reads as follows: aDSIHc
"G.R. No. 233650 (People of the Philippines vs. Leroy Manaig y Pesito). —
(1) NOTE:
(a) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated January 23, 2018 stating that he is adopting his appellant's brief as his supplemental brief; and
(b) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 1, 2018 stating that it is adopting its appellee's brief as its supplemental brief; and
(2) REQUIRE the Jail Warden of the Calamba City Jail, to IMMEDIATELY TRANSFER accused-appellant to the New Bilibid Prison of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and SUBMIT to the Court a report of such compliance, and the Director General of the BuCor to CONFIRM such confinement within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed April 21, 2017 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08242, affirming the November 16, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found Leroy Manaig guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165.
To recall, a buy-bust team was formed by the Calamba City Philippine National Police (PNP), in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), upon receiving a report that Manaig is selling illegal drugs. During the operation, Manaig handed a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to the poseur-buyer, which was later identified as shabu. He was also found to be in possession of another plastic sachet with white crystalline substance when he was frisked.
Manaig denied the accusations against him and claimed that he was at a friend's house attending a birthday party when, all of a sudden, four (4) armed men in civilian clothes barged inside his house. While faced down on the ground, he was frisked, handcuffed and thereafter brought to the police station.
The CA affirmed the RTC and ruled that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present: 1.) that the buyer and the seller were identified; 2.) that the transaction or sale took place; and 3.) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence. In cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the accused of the marked money consummate the transaction, as what transpired during the buy-bust operation conducted by the police against Manaig.
As to the conviction for illegal possession, the CA discussed that it must be shown that: 1.) the accused is in the 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. In this case, as an incident to his lawful arrest resulting from the buy-bust operation, Manaig was found in possession of another sachet of shabu. His mere possession of the dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict him. Thus, an appeal ensued.
In People v. Mike Steve and Rashid Mangtoma, 2 the Court ruled that the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.
Here, in comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, all that Leroy could muster is the defense of frame-up, which on its own is weak and self-serving. His assertions, unsupported by any plausible proof, cannot prevail over positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Not one of the guests in the birthday party substantiated the story of Leroy that the accusation was a frame-up. Moreover, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly confirmed compliance with the chain of custody rule.
WHEREFORE, the April 21, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08242 is hereby AFFIRMED. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
2. G.R. No. 204911, August 6, 2014.