G.R. No. 225634 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. ALLAN JAO Y CALONIA AND ROGELIO CATIGTIG Y COBIO, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced them as follows: (a) for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, each accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and (b) for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, each accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00. [19] The RTC found the prosecution to have established that accused-appellants were validly arrested in a legitimate buy-bust operation, and that the searches made on them were likewise valid as they were made incidental to such arrests. On the other hand, it did not give credence to accused-appellants' defense of denial in light of the positive testimonies and the credible evidence against them. Further, the RTC upheld the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as the policemen properly complied with the chain of custody rule. [20] Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA. The CA Proceedings In a Decision [21] dated October 28, 2015, the CA affirmed accused­ appellants' respective convictions in toto . [22] It held that: (a) the prosecution had sufficiently established all the elements of illegal delivery and illegal possession of shabu against accused-appellants; (b) accused-appellants' arrests were made after legitimate buy-bust operations and not by instigation; and (c) there was no break in the chain of custody that would have compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. [23] Hence, the instant appeal. Meanwhile and after accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal, the CA received a letter [24] dated February 9, 2016 from the Bureau of Corrections, stating that Catigtig had already died on August 7, 2015. [25] Thus, the CA issued a Resolution [26] dated June 8, 2016 which, inter alia , referred the said letter to the Court for its consideration. The Issue Before the Court The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The Court's Ruling Jao's appeal must be denied, while the cases against Catigtig should be dismissed and declared closed and terminated. I. For a successful prosecution of the crime of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, it must be proven that the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; that such delivery is not authorized by law; and that the accused knowingly made the delivery. Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without consideration. [27] On the other hand, in the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; that such possession is not autho