SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 185276. March 6, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ERICK SANUARIO Y MAGNO, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 March 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 185276 — (People of the Philippines v. Erick Sanuario y Magno). — We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Erick Sanuario y Magno (appellant), from the May 21, 2008 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02657.
The RTC Ruling
In its November 20, 2006 decision, 2 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, convicted the appellant of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 3 It believed the straightforward testimony of Police Officer 1 (PO1) Noel Pineda, the poseur-buyer and arresting officer who was part of the police team that conducted the buy-bust operation. The RTC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate review, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the crime charged when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant also argued that it is necessary that the accused who sold the prohibited drug must be identified as the offender by the prosecution witnesses. In this case, the only eyewitness to the illegal transaction was the confidential informant who was not presented in court to testify. DcAEIS
The CA rejected the appellant's argument. This Court has on occasion held that the presentation of the confidential informant, whose identity must be hidden to preserve his invaluable service to the police, may be dispensed with. 4
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal.
We find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. 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. 5
In this case, PO1 Pineda positively identified the appellant as the seller of the seized drug, weighing 0.16 gram, which was examined by Police Senior Inspector Isidro Carino, a Forensic Chemist, and found to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The appellant failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO1 Pineda was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. 6 A bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Pineda of the appellant as the person who sold to him the shabu.
The appellant's insistence that the police informant should have been presented in court, since he was the only eyewitness to the transaction, is untenable. It must be remembered that the presentation of the confidential informant, whose identity must be hidden to preserve his invaluable service to the police, may be dispensed with. 7
The testimony of a police informant in an illegal drug case is not essential to convict the accused since the testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative, but where the informant is the only eyewitness to the illegal transaction, his testimony is essential and non-presentation of the informant is fatal to the prosecution's case. 8
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duties, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. 9
Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity involved, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. RA 9346 10 proscribes the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the lower courts correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. CHDTIS
WHEREFORE, the May 21, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02657 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Sesinando E. Villon; rollo, pp. 2-16.
2.Docketed as Criminal Case No. 7323. CA rollo, pp. 10-16; penned by Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez.
3.The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4.People v. Cadley, 469 Phil. 515, 527 (2004).
5.Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 194, 203-204.
6.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 707, 726.
7.People v. Cadley, supra note 4.
8.People v. Jubail, G.R. No. 143718, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 478, 501-502.
9.People v. Domingcil, 464 Phil. 342, 356 (2004).
10.An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.