G.R. No. 202206 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. TENG MONER Y ADAM, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court renders its Joint Decision as follows: 1. In Criminal Case No. Q-05-133982: The Court finds accused TENG MONER Y ADAM "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or illegal selling of three point ninety-one (3.91) grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00). 2. In Criminal Case No. Q-05-133983: The Court finds accused TENG MONER Y ADAM, JUDIE DURADO Y MACABANGEN, FATIMA MACABANGEN Y NUÑEZ, ABUBAKAR USMAN Y MASTORA, GUIAMIL ABU Y JUANITEZ, NORODIN USMAN Y MASTORA, RICHARD PASCUAL Y TANGALIN and AMINA USMAN-MONER "NOT GUILTY" for violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 considering that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The pieces of evidence subject matter of Crim. Case No. Q-05-133983 are hereby ordered to be safely delivered to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition. [6] As can be expected, Moner elevated his case to the Court of Appeals which, unfortunately for him, ruled to affirm the findings of the trial court and dispositively held: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated August 4, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-05-133982 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED. [7] Hence, Moner interposes this appeal wherein he reiterates the same errors on the part of the trial court contained in his Brief filed with the Court of Appeals, to wit: A. THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT ISSUED ITS DECISION DATED AUGUST 4, 2009 FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT MONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATING SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165, WHEN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE THREE (3) PROSECUTION WITNESSES (PO2 JOACHIM PANOPIO, PO3 JUNNIFER TULDANES, AND PO3 EDWIN LIRIO) ARE HIGHLY INCREDIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE TO PROVE THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST. B. THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ITS DECISION WHEN IT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES POLICE OFFICERS WHICH ARE FULL OF INCONSISTENCIES. C. THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED DECISION WHEN IT FAILED TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENSE WITNESSES WHO CLEARLY TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO BUY-BUST AND THAT APPELLANT MONER WAS NOT SELLING ANY PROHIBITED DRUGS. D. THE COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT ISSUED THE ASSAILED DECISION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY PROVISION OF SEC. 19 OF R.A. NO. 9165, ON THE MATTER OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY, AND PICTURE TAKING OF THE EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM THE ACCUSED, AS WELL AS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 86 THEREOF. [8] In sum, Moner maintains that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof to sustain his conviction for the charge of sale of dangerous drugs. He highlights the fact that the prosecuti