G.R. No. 184804 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RASHAMIA HERNANDEZ Y SANTOS AND GRACE KATIPUNAN Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding both accused, Rashamia Hernandez y Santos and Grace Katipunan y Cruz, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 5 Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165, they are hereby sentenced each to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay costs. The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon proper receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules. [17] Aggrieved, appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 26 May 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the RTC Decision, thus: WHEREFORE , in the light of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED . [18] Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 11 June 2008. [19] In their Brief, [20] appellants assigned the following errors: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PROHIBITED DRUG CONSTITUTING THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSE. II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu , the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu , what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary and object evidence the said elements. [21] PO2 Dimacali, the poseur-buyer, testified that appellants sold to him shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation. His positive identification of appellants and direct account of the transaction are clear, thus: Asst. Pros. Yap: Police Officer Dimacali, what was your participation in this police operation against Rashamia Hernandez and Grace Katipunan? Witness: I was the poseur-buyer in this operation, sir. Q Now, when was (sic) this operation took (sic) place? A On January 14, 2004 at 8:00 p.m., sir. Q Where? A Along Callejon Flores, Solis Street, Tondo, Manila. Q Now, who was the target person of this operation? A A certain Larry, Mia and Grace, sir. Q Who furnished you of these particular names, these target persons? A Our CI, sir. Q When? A Personally appeared in our office on January 14. Q What time? A At about 6:00 p.m., sir. Q Aside from these names, what other d