G.R. No. 177220 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding Ruben Robles GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 Art. II RA 9165 for unlawfully selling 0.09 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). He is hereby sentenced to a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and sentenced also to 12 years imprisonment and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 for Violation of Section 11 Art. II RA 9165 for illegal possession of 0.16 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). For insufficiency of evidence and failure of the prosecution to present that quantum of proof necessary to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the Court hereby pronounces Leogardo (sic) Pilapil NOT GUILTY of Violation of Section 11 Art. II RA 9165 for alleged possession of 0.09 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of Ruben Robles from Parañaque City Jail to New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City. He is further directed to forward all specimen in these cases to the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for proper disposition. [13] In convicting appellant, the trial court relied on the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties regularly and the rule that denial as a defense is inherently weak. By Decision of December 4, 2006, [14] the Court of Appeals sustained appellant's conviction for illegal sale of shabu , but exonerated him on the charge of illegal possession. It found, among other things, that the elements of illegal sale were sufficiently established by the testimonies of PO2 Besoña and PO3 Malicse. On the charge of illegal possession, the appellate court held that the records bore discrepancies in the identity of the illegal substance which, coupled with the prosecution's failure to distinguish the shabu subject of the sale from that found in appellant's possession, warranted appellant's acquittal on reasonable doubt. Appellant now seeks relief from this Court. In his Supplemental Brief, [15] appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He questions, among other things, the forensic laboratory examination results and the chain of custody of the shabu subject thereof, as in fact the appellate court itself found that the prosecution failed to distinguish the shabu allegedly sold by him from that found in his possession. The appeal is impressed with merit. Prefatorily, although the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal. [16] In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. [17] The existence of da