G.R. No. 195528 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused JOEL CLARA Y BUHAIN GUILTY beyond reasonable of the crime [in] violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 as charged (for drug pushing) and he is sentenced to suffer the prescribed jail term of Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00 . The shabu weighing 0.07 gram involved in this case is ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for disposal in accordance with R.A. 9165. [42] The trial court ruled that Joel directly dealt with the poseur buyer and participated in all the stages of the illegal sale. It found conspiracy between Joel and Ningning. It pointed out that Ningning was able to escape the police dragnet while Joel was being arrested because of her familiarity as a drug operator with police operations. The police operation and its coordination with the operatives of the PDEA would be recognized by the appellate court as legally performed. [43] On the contrary the prosecutions scenario that the police officers entered Joels residence and hauled him out with no reason at all was found to be improbable. [44] Ruling of the Court of Appeals In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the appellate court ruled that all the elements of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs were present. [45] First , Joel, as the seller of illegal drug, was positively identified by the poseur buyer and the police officers; Second , the confiscated white crystalline substance which was found by the PNP crime laboratory as positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride which is a dangerous drug was presented during trial; and Lastly , the illegal sale was for a consideration of P200.00 given by PO3 Ramos as poseur buyer. The appellate court further held that the non-presentation of the marked money was not fatal since the prosecution witnesses were able to establish that the P200.00 bill used to purchase the illegal drug was in the possession of Ningning who was able to evade arrest. [46] Our Ruling After a careful review of the evidence, we resolve to reverse the ruling of conviction and render a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused. In his Brief, the accused-appellant contested his conviction due to the inconsistencies in the prosecutions presentation of a supposed buy-bust operation, coupled with its failure to establish with certainty the chain of custody of evidence. He also argued against the presumption of regularity of performance of duties. Finally, to substantiate his innocence, he pointed out that he was not even the target person in the PDEA Coordination Report and denied any conspiracy and involvement with such target person named Ningning. [47] Inspite of the imperfect narration of events by the accused Joel, we are constrained to render a judgment of acquittal due to the lapses of the prosecution that led to its failure to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,