G.R. No. 201725 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JOY ALCALA y NOVILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) PESOS . The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the dangerous drugs subject hereof for proper disposition and final disposal. [9] The trial court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently satisfied the quantum required for accuseds conviction. It found the testimonies of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation credible and reliable since absence of any showing of ill-motive on their part to concoct trumped-up charges, they enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. [10] On the other hand, the denial of the accused was found to be unsubstantiated by any convincing and credible evidence. Hence, being considered as a negative, weak, and self-serving evidence, accuseds bare denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecutions witnesses and the physical evidence which supported said judgment of conviction. [11] The Ruling of the CA On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision convicting the accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently bear out the statutory elements of the crime. The elements of the sale of illegal drugs between accused and PO2 Erwin Bautista (PO2 Bautista), as poseur-buyer, have been duly established by the prosecution, considering that there was actual delivery of the prohibited drug to the poseur-buyer and actual receipt by the seller of the marked money. These established factual findings consummated the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping police officers and the drug dealer. [12] Moreover, the appellate court held that failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render the arrest of the accused illegal, nor will it result to the inadmissibility in evidence of the illegal drugs seized in the course of the entrapment operation. What is of utmost relevance is the preservation of the integrity and maintenance of the evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs, for in the end, the same shall necessarily be the thrust that shall determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The prosecution, therefore, must simply show that the seized item recovered from accused was the same item presented in court and found to be an illegal/prohibited drug. These were all established and proven beyond reasonable doubt in the instant case. [13] In addition, the CA gave no credence to the defense of the accused of denial. It ruled that a denial is a weak defense which cannot prevail against the positive testimony of the police officers acting in the performance of their official duty, which