Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 184957 -

G.R. No. 184957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GRACE VENTURA Y NATIVIDAD, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 9165,RA 571,RA 427,RA 280,RA 711,RA 9165RA 430,RA 497,RA 762,RA 397,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan dated January 20, 2006 finding the accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan dated January 20, 2006 finding the accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED. [8] Electing to seek a final recourse before this Court, accused-appellant filed her Notice of Appeal [9] on 28 July 2008. Accused-appellant filed a supplemental brief while the prosecution adopted its appellee's brief earlier submitted to the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant seeks her acquittal, praying for the reversal of the judgment of conviction in the illegal drugs case. The defense claims that the appellate court committed serious error in (a) finding the existence of an unbroken chain in the custody of the shabu subject of the buy-bust operation as well as its evidentiary value; and (b) ruling that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal. At the heart of the defense argument is that the defense failed to account for the chain of custody of the evidence. The petition lacks merit. The presumption of innocence [10] of an accused in criminal cases is a most fundamental constitutional right that must be upheld at all times. Applying the foregoing principle, it has been established that the burden of proof is a duty borne by the prosecution. [11] Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, i.e., "He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove." With this in mind, conviction of an accused must stand on the weight and strength of the evidence of the prosecution and cannot rest on the weakness of the defense. [12] The straightforward testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution established that at around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of 10 August 2003, a group of police officers composed of PO2 Sarmiento, PO3 Magsakay, Silla, and an asset, acting as poseur-buyer, went to the house of Danilo and accused-appellant Grace Ventura. The team was to conduct a buy-bust operation on instruction of the chief of police. Upon reaching the area, PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay positioned themselves near the gate of accused-appellant. While they were stationed in their respective places, the police asset went to accused-appellant's gate. He knocked thereon. They then saw Danilo opening the gate and stepping out. The asset handed the marked money to Danilo, who then went inside and closed the gate. A few minutes later, accused-appellant opened the gate and handed a plastic sachet containing shabu to the police asset. They then saw the police asset execute the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head, indicating that the sale had been consummated. The police officers then ran towards them, but accused-appellant managed to close the gate. PO2 Sarmiento pushed ope