G.R. No. 199938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LABA Y CAMALOMNG SAMANODING.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly marked as follows: (a) EXH-AMTVECCNSP 18/06/05 and signatures-98.81 grams (b) EXH-B MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures - 96.65 grams (c) EXH-C MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures - 1.17 grams [16] The following day, or on June 19, 2005, upon qualitative examination by forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Stella Garciano Ebuen (Police Senior Inspector Ebuen) on the confiscated sachets, which contained a total of 196.63 grams of white crystalline substance, the same tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. [17] Consequently, appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 in an Information [18] which reads: That on or about the 18 th day of June 2005, in Pasay City, Metro-Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this I Ionorable Court, the above-named accused, being a departing passenger via Cebu Pacific Airlines flight no. 5J-965 239 bound for Davao, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport 196.63 grams of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride ( SHABU ), a dangerous drugs, by concealing it inside his worn colored white rubber shoes with marking "SPICER." Contrary to law. When arraigned on June 27, 2005 with the assistance of counsel, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. [19] In defense, appellant claimed that on the date and time in question, he was at the Manila Domestic Airport [20] for his flight to Davao City. After passing through the metal detector and while walking towards the ticketing counter to check-in, a police officer, whom he later identified as SPO2 Peji, [21] called his attention and asked him to stay for a while [22] because something was allegedly recovered from him. At the same time, appellant noticed that someone had been arrested, and he heard SPO2 Peji tell that person to settle the case so that they could just "pass" the "thing" to appellant, which turned out to be shabu . [23] Thereafter, SPO2 Peji and Villocillo brought appellant to an office [24] where SPO2 Peji forced him to admit ownership of the shabu . [25] When appellant refused, SPO2 Peji suggested the settlement of the case for P100,000.00, an amount which appellant could not afford. Later, he was brought to a PDEA office where PDEA agents took his statement and once again asked him to admit ownership of the confiscated shabu . [27] Appellant averred that SPO2 Peji confiscated his wallet which contained P1,600.00 in cash, as well as P2,000.00 found in the pocket of his pants. [28] Finally, appellant denied wearing the white rubber shoes with the label "Spicer" at the time he was arrested. [29] Ruling of the RTC On August 29, 2006, after trial on the merits, the RTC convicted [30] appellant as charged upon a finding that all the elements for transportation of drugs, i.e ., actual physical possession and control of the prohibited drugs, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court, [31] have been establis