G.R. No. 231981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HENRY BANQUILAY Y ROSEL, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused HENRY BANQUILAY y ROSEL guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Php500,000.00. According to the RTC, Banquilay's bare denial that no buy-bust operation took place cannot prevail against the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The positive declaration of IO1 Katangkatang as the poseur-buyer cannot be overcome by the simple and bare denial of Banquilay, given that there was marking, photographs, and inventory of the items in the presence of the witnesses required by law. The court also found that the integrity of the evidence relative to the " shabu " sold to the poseur-buyer has been well preserved. Aggrieved, Banquilay filed a Notice of Appeal and elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. However, convinced by the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimony, the appellate court affirmed the RTC Decision. Citing People of the Philippines v. Palomares , [18] the Court of Appeals held that the prosecution sufficiently established the following elements, namely the: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. [19] In his Notice of Receipt of Decision with Withdrawal of Counsel [20] dated December 2, 2016, Banquilay informed the Court of Appeals that he will now be represented by the Public Attorney's Office ( PAO ). The PAO filed an Entry of Appearance with Notice of Appeal [21] dated December 6, 2016, which the Court of Appeals granted and elevated to this Court. [22] In his Supplemental Brief [23] before this Court, Banquilay noted that the Court of Appeals erred in: (a) affirming the Decision of the RTC despite the improbability of two (2) simultaneous buy-bust operations utilizing the same poseur-buyer, which affected the integrity of the seized item; and (b) convicting Banquilay despite failure of the prosecution to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. [24] The appeal is unmeritorious. According to Banquilay, the Court of Appeals failed to consider that there were two (2) simultaneous buy-bust operations that were conducted on that particular day, which utilized the same poseur-buyer. Hence, the integrity of the seized shabu was compromised as there was no evidence to prove that it was still in the hands of the poseur-buyer IO1 Katangkatang, who went to participate in the other buy-bust operation. Banquilay noted in IO3 Tablate's testimony that there was another buy-bust operation against one Dominiciano Veronque. In addition, Banquilay cited that by IO3 Tablate's admission, the latter stated that he proceeded to the other operation accompanied by IO1 Katangkatang, the supposed evidence custodian of