G.R. No. 198108 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROSELITO TACULOD Y ELLE, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court finds that accused ROSELITO TACULOD y ELLE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violations of R. A. 9165 and imposes upon him the following: In Criminal Case No. 69226 for Violation of Section 5, Article II, R. A. 9165, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00 pesos; and In Criminal Case No. 69227 for Violation of Section 11, Article II, R. A. 9165, the indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day as minimum to Twelve (12) Years and a fine of Php300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment. The penalties of imprisonment in both cases shall be served SIMULTANEOUSLY. The four (4) pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu are hereby confiscated in favor of the government and shall be turned-over to PDEA for proper disposition. [24] The Judgment of the Court of Appeals On appeal, [25] the Court of Appeals fully affirmed the appellants conviction in its Decision dated February 21, 2011. The appellate court also ruled that the elements for the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been proved in this case given that there was a meeting of the minds between the appellant and the poseur-buyer as to the object of the sale and the consideration therefor, as well as the fact of payment and delivery. As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the appellate court gave credence to testimonial evidence of the prosecution that established that when PO1 Montefrio bought drugs from the appellant, the latter took out four sachets of shabu from his pocket and gave one to the poseur-buyer. After placing the appellant under arrest, the police officers ordered the appellant to empty the contents of his pocket. It was then that the three remaining sachets of shabu were recovered. With respect to the issue of non-compliance with the provisions of the law pertaining to the handling and custody of seized illegal drugs, the Court of Appeals brushed the same aside, pointing out that the evidence of the prosecution disclosed that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs had been preserved. Lastly, the appellate court held that the bare denials of the appellant cannot prevail over the categorical and positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant, thus, filed the instant appeal to this Court. [26] The appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by insisting that the prosecution failed to establish the exact time of the alleged buy-bust operation. The appellant points out that according to the Pre-Operation Report of the buy-bust operation, the time and date of the operation specified therein was 24 1700H September 2003 or three hours before the confidential informant supposedly called the police in this case to report on the drug peddling activities of the appellant. This inconsistency allegedly casts doubt on whether a buy-bust operation was really conducted and whether the informant actually existed. The appellant also