G.R. No. 207664 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GIL SALVIDAR Y GARLAN, ACCUSED-.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED . The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Br. 120 in 1) Crim. Case No. C-78532 sentencing the Accused-Appellant to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos(PhP500,000.00) is AFFIRMED; and, 2) Crim. Case No. C-78533 is likewise AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed in that the Accused-Appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Twelve(12) years and One(1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen(14) years, as maximum. Costs against the Accused-Appellant. SO ORDERED . [28] In affirming the accused-appellants conviction, the CA cited the following grounds: Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, it is material to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the evidence of corpus delicti . Said otherwise, the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: 1)the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and 2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug. In the instant case, PO3 Galvez[s] testimony proves that the sale of illegal drugs actually took place. x x x [T]he Accused-Appellant was caught in a buy-bust operation freely and knowingly selling and delivering prohibited drugs. x x x. x x x The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused-Appellant committed the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It was able to prove the following elements: 1)the accused is in possession of an object identified as a prohibited drug; 2)such possession is not authorized by law; and, 3)he freely and consciously possessed the said drug. The records manifestly show that, after the buy-bust team arrested the Accused-Appellant, the procedural body search was conducted on his person. The search led to the discovery of one(1) transparent plastic box containing an undetermined amount of suspected dried marijuana leaves (later weighed at 29.01 grams), which he freely possessed knowing the same to be prohibited drugs. After the conduct of laboratory examinations, the same yielded positive for marijuana. Further, he failed to present any document authorizing him by law to possess the same. x x x. The Accused-Appellants allegation that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and prove the identity of the seized drugs, holds no water. In all cases involving the handling and custody of dangerous drugs, the police officers are guided by Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165. The language of the foregoing provision shows that the failure of the police officers to strictly comply with it is not fatal and does not render the evidence adduced against the Accused-Appellant void and inadmissible. What is important is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or in