G.R. No. 188103 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JEROME PALER, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed June 7, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 10th Judicial Region, Branch 12, Oroquieta City, in Criminal Case No. 1672, entitled People of the Philippines v. Jerome L. Paler of Barrientos St., Layawan, Oroquieta City , is hereby AFFIRMED in toto . [12] Hence, this appeal on the following grounds: In giving full weight and credence to the unbelievable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; and In convicting the appellant of the crime charged despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [13] The appellant contends that the prosecutions case against the accused-appellant is weak because the evidence does not measure up to the required quantum of proof to convict in criminal cases. [14] The Courts Ruling We affirm the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The appellant was convicted for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, which reads: Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals . The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00 ) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transaction. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. [15] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. The testimonial and the documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the appellant establish the presence of these elements. First, the identity of the seller was duly established. The police officers, PO3 Balbutin and PO1 Gula, positively identified appellant Paler as the same person from whom their asset purchased the sachet of shabu . PO3 Balbutin and PO1 Gula were both present at the entrapment and they witnessed the transaction between the poseur -buyer and the appellant. Second , the police officers saw the appellant handing the sachet to the poseur -buyer in exchange of the P100.00 peso bill that the appellant earlier received from the poseur-buyer. Not only did the police retrieve the shabu which was the object of the illegal sale, they also r