G.R. No. 221465 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RODELIO LOPEZ Y CAPULI, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused RODELIO LOPEZ y CAPULI @ TOTOY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for pushing shabu) as charged and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine in the amount of P500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 05238649 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused RODELIO LOPEZ y CAPULI @ TOTOY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for violation of Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for possession of shabu) as charged and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment in an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and to pay a Fine in the amount of P350,000.00. The shabu in this case are ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for disposal as per RA 9165. [8] The trial court held that the prosecution had established all the required elements for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs through a legitimate buy-bust operation. The trial court noted that the police failed to comply with the directive of Section 21, Article 11 of R.A. No. 9165 but nonetheless convicted appellant because the defense did not raise said issue during trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's findings that all elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven by the prosecution. The Court of Appeals considered appellant's defense of denial as weak and which cannot prevail over the positive declaration of PO2 Garcia. Moreover, the Court of Appeals ruled that appellant failed to impute any ill-motive on the part of PO2 Garcia to falsely testify against him. Unfazed, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. [9] In a Resolution [10] dated 20 April 2016, the Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties manifested that they are no longer filing their Supplemental Briefs. [11] In his Brief, [12] appellant alleges that the prosecution failed to account for the chain of custody of the evidence. Appellant points out that PO2 Garcia did not immediately put markings on the confiscated plastic sachets after his apprehension and the latter did not even know who made the markings at the police station. Appellant also zeroes in on the police officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such as the absence of an inventory and photograph of the specimens. We dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellant's conviction. The essential elements in the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.