G.R. No. 188107 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RONALD M. DEL ROSARIO @ “AGING,” ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Ronald M. del Rosario GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 Art. II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and suffer the accessory penalty provided for by law and pay the costs. Let the shabu in this case be sent to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition. [16] In convicting Del Rosario, the RTC found the illegal sale by Del Rosario of the dangerous drug to have been clearly established. Moreover, the RTC rejected Del Rosarios claim that the police officers tried to extort money from him, and ascribed to the police officers the presumption that they performed their duties with regularity. [17] Del Rosario appealed [18] this decision to the Court of Appeals, which, on October 28, 2008 affirmed the RTC. [19] The Court of Appeals rebuffed Del Rosarios defenses of denial and extortion in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers and the inconsistent testimony of his only witness as to how the police officers were identified as such. Finding the task of assigning values to the testimony of a witness to belong to the RTC, the Court of Appeals accorded great weight and respect to the RTCs assessment of the witnesses credibility in the case at bar. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the RTC that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. [20] As to Del Rosarios allegation that the validity of the buy-bust operation was doubtful for non-compliance by the police officers with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Court of Appeals declared that there was no reason to question the identity of the confiscated dangerous drug in this case, as it was established during trial that the sachet of shabu presented in court was the same one recovered from Del Rosario. [21] Aggrieved, Del Rosario is now before us [22] with the same errors he assigned in his Appellants Brief, [23] to wit: I THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE POLICE OFFICERS FAILURE TO REGULARLY PERFORM THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS. [24] Del Rosario posits that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt as he was convicted because of the weakness of his defense, rather than the strength of the prosecutions evidence. He highlighted the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses testimonies, which are material to the establishment of the identity of the dangerous drug allegedly confiscated from him. Del Rosario also points out the non-compliance by the police officers with the guidelines in the chain of custody of seized drugs. [25] Issue The sole issue in this case