G.R. No. 219584 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PLACIDO GOCO Y OMBROG, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of P200,000.00 for each violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC held that the prosecution had established all the elements to secure convictions under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, respectively. It observed that the sale of shabu between Goco and P02 Emano was consummated, and when arrested, a search made on Goco's person yielded three (3) more sachets of shabu . The four (4) sachets of shabu were presented in court and identified by P02 Emano as the same sachets taken from Goco. Further, it gave no credence to Goco's defense of alibi and denial, which paled in light of P02 Emano's positive identification of Goco as the seller of shabu . [15] Dissatisfied, Goco elevated his conviction before the CA. [16] The CA Ruling In a Decision [17] dated June 30, 2014, the CA affirmed Goco's conviction with modification, sentencing Goco to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The CA held that the testimonies of P02 Emano, SP03 Belga, and SP04 Cabagsang only differed on minor points but they were all consistent on material points, i.e. , that Goco sold the drugs to P02 Emano on June 25, 2003, and three (3) more sachets of shabu were recovered from him. It gave no credence to Goco's defense of denial, and noted that he failed to adduce sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers in the performance of their official duties. [18] Undaunted, Goco filed the instant appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Goco's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, should be upheld. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. [19] The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. [20] Goco was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, respectively. In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following: (a) the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery