G.R. No. 185166 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it appearing that the guilt of [appellant] MARK LESTER DE LA ROSA y SUELLO was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, for violation [of] Section[s] 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, he is hereby sentenced: 1. In Criminal Case No. 06-1870 , to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 ; 2. In Criminal Case No. 06-1871 , to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve [12] years and one [1] day, as minimum, to fourteen [14] years, and eight [8] months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 ; and 3. To pay the costs. Let the plastic sachets containing 3.02grams, 2.95 grams, and 2.65 grams of marijuana be turned over to the PDEA for proper disposition. [27] [Emphasis supplied]. Aggrieved, appellant appealed the aforesaid 8 December 2006 Decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals via a Notice of Appeal. [28] The Court of Appeals, after a thorough study of the records, rendered the assailed Decision dated 24 April 2008, affirming appellant's conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The decretal portion of the said Decision reads, thus: WHEREFORE , the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the questioned Decision of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 135, in Criminal Case Nos. 06-1870 and 06-1871, convicting the [appellant] beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, AFFIRMED . [29] [Emphasis supplied]. Still unsatisfied, appellant elevated the aforesaid Decision of the appellate court to this Court via a Notice of Appeal. [30] In a Resolution [31] dated 14 January 2009, this Court required the parties to simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire. Instead of filing a Supplemental Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion [32] stating that it be excused from filing it as the appellant has not advanced any cogent or compelling reason for the modification, much less reversal of the assailed appellate court's Decision. Appellant, on the other hand, opted to file a Supplemental Brief [33] reiterating therein the arguments raised in his Appellant's Brief filed before the Court of Appeals. In his brief, appellant raised the following assignment of errors: I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WHICH FAILED TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF THE [APPELLANT]. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE [APPELLANT] GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [34] Appellant argues that the fact of sale of marijuana was not conclusively established because PO3 Lowaton's testimony was incredible for no person in his right mind would boldly sell prohibited drugs in broad daylight and in a public place. The inconsistency in the testimo