G.R. No. 230227 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. NOEL ZAPANTA Y LUCAS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years with a fine of P300,000.00. [7] The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The lone testimony of the prosecution witness established a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the seller, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale. The RTC also held that the prosecution satisfactorily proved that accused­-appellant illegally possessed one (1) sachet of shabu, ratiocinating that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi , sufficient to convict accused-appellant. The RTC gave weight to the positive declaration of the police officer who appeared to be credible, as opposed to the claim of accused-appellant that the buy-bust operation was merely fabricated. Likewise, the RTC applied the presumption that the police officers performed their duties in a regular manner. [8] Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA. Ruling of the CA In the assailed decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The CA ruled that the prosecution established through testimonial evidence the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The subsequent confiscation of another sachet with suspected shabu from accused-appellant's possession sans any authority to possess the same, likewise made him liable for illegal possession. The CA also held that the prosecution was able to establish the links in the chain of custody despite some procedural lapses. To the CA, the totality of the testimonial, documentary, and object evidence not only adequately supported the findings that accused-appellant sold dangerous drugs and was in possession thereof; it a1so accounted for the unbroken chain of custody of the seized evidence as well. Finally, the CA did not give credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up. It declared that accused-appellant failed to overthrow the presumption of regularity accorded to the official acts of the prosecution witnesses and maintained accused-appellant's conviction. [9] Hence, this appeal. Issue The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly found accused­ appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165. In his Supplemental Brief, [10] accused-appellant noted substantial gaps in the chain of custody as follows: first, the drugs seized from accused-­appellant were not immediately marked; second, the police officers failed to conduct an inventory and take photographs of the drugs seized; third, the prosecution failed to present all persons who purportedly had custody of the drugs seized; and finally, there was no testimony as to the