G.R. No. 187496 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MALIK MANALAO y ALAUYA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime in violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentences him to a penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. And accused is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt [of] having violated Section 11, Article II, of the same Act, and imposes upon him the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as minimum to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and as fine of P300,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. If in case of possible commutation of sentences or not, he is entitled to the benefits of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, for his preventive imprisonment that he suffered. The subject Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and/or paraphernalia are ordered confiscated in favor of the government and to be turn[ed] over to the Dangerous Drugs Board within 15 days from date hereof. The Warden of the BJMP, Tubod, Lanao del Norte, is ordered to bring and deliver the living body of accused to the Bureau of Corrections or National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, within 15 days from the date of the promulgation of decision. [13] Aggrieved, Manalao appealed [14] to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded, and on November 27, 2008, it affirmed in toto [15] the RTC in its Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00173-MIN. Issue Manalao is now before this Court, assigning [16] the same lone error he raised before the Court of Appeals, to wit: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [17] In support of his assigned error, Manalao posits the following arguments: The sale of the drugs was not established; [18] and The chain of custody of evidence of the drugs was not established. [19] Manalao asseverates that the prosecution failed to establish that the sale of the dangerous drug ever took place since none of the prosecution witnesses saw the alleged transaction between him and the civilian agent. Manalao contends that the civilian agent who posed as the buyer should have been presented in court because PO1 Solarta, the only one who testified to witnessing the buying and selling of the shabu , did not even see what the civilian agent supposedly bought from him as PO1 Solarta could only see Manalao giving something to the civilian agent, as he said so during his testimony. [20] Manalao also claims that the buy-bust team did not follow the proper procedure in the custody and control of seized drugs as they failed to mark, make an inventory, and photograph the confiscated drugs immediately and at the place