G.R. No. 180505 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARIO MIGUEL Y BERNABE, AND AMALIA DIZON Y REGACHELO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the following day, after lunch, her husband went to the place mentioned by the lady passenger to look for her which is in front of the MMDA station. Before her husband left, he told her that he will return immediately after she talked with the lady. She waited until evening that day, but her husband never returned. Later, she learned from her husband's aunt that Mario Miguel had been detained at the Pasig Police Station. [9] On 16 January 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting accused-appellants for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: In Criminal Case No. 12364-D filed against accused Mario Miguel y Bernabe for Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Sale of Shabu ), he is hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 500,000.00). In Criminal Case No. 12365-D filed against accused Amalia Dizon y Regachelo for Violation of Section 11, Article II, Article II, ( sic ) Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Possession of Shabu ), said accused is hereby sentenced to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years and to pay a FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP300,000.00). Considering the penalty imposed upon accused Mario Miguel, his immediate commitment to the National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, is hereby ordered. Pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act 9165, the amount of Two Hundred Pesos recovered from accused Mario Miguel representing the proceeds of the illegal sale of the plastic sachet of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. Again, pursuant to Section 21 of the same law, representatives from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is ( sic ) hereby ordered to take charge and have custody over the sachets of shabu object of these cases, for proper disposition. [10] The trial court accorded full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and found no clear showing of malice, bad faith or ill-will on their part, applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Raising inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police operatives who conducted the buy-bust operation, accused-appellants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC decision. The appellate court sustained accused-appellants' conviction in this wise: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed decision dated January 16, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 70, is AFFIRMED in toto. [11] Hence, accused-appellants are now before this Court assailing said decision on a lone assignment of error, viz .: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT MARIO MIGUEL GUILTY OF VIOLATING SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 AND ACCUSED-APPELLANT AMALIA DIZON GUILTY OF VIOLATING SECTION 11,