FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235659. March 4, 2019.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARY GRACE ROMERO y GRIZOLA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 4, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235659 (The People of the Philippines vs. Mary Grace Romero y Grizola)
Assailed in this appeal is the Decision 1 dated May 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07281 finding accused-appellant Mary Grace Romero y Grizola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 26 (b), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 2 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
The complete records of this case were elevated to this Court pursuant to the Resolution 3 dated August 7, 2017 of the CA which gave due course to accused-appellant's notice of appeal. On January 24, 2018, this Court issued a Resolution 4 requiring the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. Both parties, however, manifested that they are adopting their respective Briefs 5 filed before the CA.
We note at the outset that accused-appellant was charged in the information for selling and/or delivering shabu and was apprehended during a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers of the City Anti-Illegal Special Operation Task Group, Camp Tomas Pepito, Sto. Domingo, Angeles City. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction but modified the decision by convicting accused-appellant for violation of Section 26 (B), Article II of R.A. No. 9165. CAIHTE
After a judicious review of the records of the case, this Court resolves to dismiss the appeal and affirm with modification the May 18, 2017 CA Decision. While the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA in convicting accused-appellant, the latter should be convicted for violation, not of Section 26 (B), but of Section 5, Article II of the R.A. No. 9165, the offense for which accused-appellant was charged in the Information.
In an attempt to sell shabu [Section 26 (B)], an accused had already the intention to sell shabu and commenced the commission of the intended crime by overt acts, i.e., showing the shabu to the buyer (police officers). But before the exchange, the sale was aborted when the police officers already identified themselves and placed accused under arrest. 6 In this case, accused-appellant already handed over the shabu to PO3 David. But there was no exchange of the buy-bust money since PO3 David already introduced himself as a police officer and arrested the accused-appellant.
This Court had pronounced that in illegal sale of shabu, what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. If there is no payment, no sale is consummated between the parties. 7
It should be noted, however, that accused-appellant was charged not only of selling but also of delivery of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The charge was not limited to selling. To establish the guilt of an accused for the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there must be evidence that "(1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such 'delivery' is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration." 8 In this case, accused-appellant set an arrangement for selling drugs to the civilian informant. 9 They agreed to meet at the mini carnival (peryahan). The informant/asset introduced PO3 David to accused-appellant that he wants to purchase shabu. Accused-appellant then handed the shabu to PO3 David who immediately introduced himself as a police officer and arrested the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant had no authority under the law to deliver shabu. She likewise knowingly and voluntarily made the delivery. On the basis of the charge against accused-appellant and the evidence presented by the prosecution, she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated May 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Mary Grace Romero y Grizola is hereby declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of shabu penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17.
2. Also known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
3. CA rollo, p. 135.
4.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
5.Id. at 25-30 and 31-35.
6. See People v. Laylo, 669 Phil. 111 (2011).
7.People v. Carrera, 768 Phil. 503 (2015); People v. Reyes, 754 Phil. 221 (2015), People v. Maongco, 720 Phil. 488 (2013).
8.People v. Carrera, 768 Phil. 503 (2015), citing People v. Maongco.
9. CA rollo, p. 65.