G.R. No. 187070 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing disquisitions, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Rolando Tamayo y Tena GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of drug pushing and of drug possession and he is hereby sentenced, as follows: In Criminal Case No. Q-03-117407, accused Rolando Tamayo y Tena is hereby sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. Q-03-117408, accused Rolando Tamayo y Tena is hereby likewise sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 in view of the large quantity of marijuana involved. The drugs involved in this case are hereby ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper disposition. SO ORDERED . [19] The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, [20] which, however, sustained the trial court's judgment of conviction. Hence, the present appeal. On June 10, 2009, we required the parties to submit their supplemental briefs if they so desired. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), however, opted not to file its supplemental brief, while the appellant adopted his brief filed with the Court of Appeals. In his brief, the appellant interposed the following arguments: I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE. [21] Simply stated, the issue is whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Rep. Act No. 9165. Appellant denies the charges against him and insists that he was merely inside his house with his three (3)-year old daughter and doing nothing illegal when the alleged buy-bust operation happened. He suggests that he was the victim of a frame-up as it is well known that some law enforcers engage in anomalous practices such as planting evidence, physical torture and extortion to extract information from suspected drug dealers or even to harass civilians. He laments the fact that his testimony was not given weight and that the trial court found his version difficult to accept. He insists that the presumption of innocence prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty and contends that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. [22] For the State, the OSG maintains that the prosecution had established all the elements of an illegal sale of prohibited drugs, viz : (1) the appellant sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. The facts show that the appellant sold and delivered marijuana to PO3 Sy who posed as a buyer. The marijuana that was seized and identified as a prohibited drug was subsequently presented in evidence. Moreover, the OSG maintains that witnesses PO2 Collado and PO3 Sy positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. The records do not disclose an