G.R. No. 200877 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [herein appellant] CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II, [Republic Act No. 9165] and sentences him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT , plus fine in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos; and [i]n CBU-67097, the court also finds him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II, [Republic Act No. 9165], and sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of T WELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos. The four hand rolled marijuana sticks in CBU-67096 and the eight rolled marijuana sticks in CBU-67097 are hereby confiscated in favor of the government and destroyed pursuant to law. With cost against the [appellant]. [14] The trial court found that the elements for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana were sufficiently established by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court held that appellants weak testimony cannot prevail over the straightforward, frank, and honest testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., a police officer, who was just doing his duty. In the same manner, the trial court stated that PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod, who participated in the buy-bust operation, were properly performing their duties as they were not inspired by any improper motive. On appeal, [15] the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 17 March 2011, affirmed the guilty verdict and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, the instant recourse raising this lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE [HEREIN APPELLANT] OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [16] Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti as its sole witness never testified as to how he was able to recover the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which are the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale of marijuana from the possession of the poseur-buyer. This failure leaves lingering doubt if indeed the marijuana was sold by the appellant to the poseur -buyer. Appellant posits that the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes submitted by the prosecution could be objects totally different from that which was allegedly, or was not that which was actually seized during the buy-bust operation. Appellant further argues that there was non-compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, i.e. , the physical inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized items. Appellant also believes that the non-presentation of the police officers who conducted the inquest proceedings and marked the seized drugs is fatal to the prosecutions case as a crucial link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs