G.R. No. 189327 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the court hereby finds the accused, GUILTY , of the crime charged against her, beyond reasonable doubt, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). The shabu , subject of this case, is hereby forfeited in favor of the State and ordered destroyed pursuant to existing Rules. [18] In convicting Mendoza of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish and prove the elements in the sale of illegal drugs. The RTC said that the prosecutions version of the events was positive, probable, and in accord with human experience. [19] The RTC also applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, as Mendoza failed to show that Mangilit and Ching, in testifying against her, were motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of dangerous drugs. [20] Finally, the RTC averred that Mendozas denial and cry of frame-up deserve no merit as not only was she unable to present any sufficient evidence to support them, but they are also weak defenses disfavored by this Court. [21] On March 29, 2007, Mendoza filed her Notice of Appeal [22] with the RTC. Mendoza anchored her appeal on the following errors: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND DISREGARDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DEFENSE. [23] On July 21, 2009, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision, affirming the RTCs judgment of conviction, to wit: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED . The assailed Decision dated March 20, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Manila in Crim. Case No. 03-214163 is hereby AFFIRMED . [24] The Court of Appeals found Mendozas appeal bereft of merit as the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the charge against her. It deemed as waived Mendozas argument that the police officers failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti as it was raised for the first time on appeal. [25] The Court of Appeals further agreed with the RTC that absent a showing of ill motive on the part of the police officers, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit and the presumption that they regularly performed their duties must be upheld. [26] Undeterred, Mendoza elevated her case to this Court, with the same issues she raised before the Court of Appeals. [27] Discussion Mendoza was charged and convicted for selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly known as shabu , in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Law, which provides: Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.