G.R. No. 189817 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA AND SOTERO BUAR Y BANGUIS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Case No. 05-1220 the court finds accused REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA alias SIRENA/REYNA and SOTERO BANGUIS BUAR alias BOY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5 Art. II of R.A. 9165, for unlawfully selling 0.07 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, this Court hereby sentences both accused to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500, 000.00 each. In Criminal Case No. 05-1221, the court promounces a verdict of NOT GUILTY as against accused REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA for violation of Sec. 11 Art. II of R.A. 9165 considering that offense charged being inherent in the offense charged against her in Criminal Case No. 05-1220. In Criminal Case No. 05-1222, the court finds accused SOTERO BANGUIS BUAR, NOT GUILTY for violation of Sec. 11 Art. II of R.A. 9165 for insufficiency of evidence. The Branch Clerk of court is hereby directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of accused REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA alias SIRENA/REYNA and SOTERO BANGUIS BUAR alias BOY from the Parañaque City jail to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and to turn over the physical evidence in this case to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) pursuant to Administrative Order No, 145-2002, for proper disposition. [41] Upon appeal, the accused-appellants, represented by the Public Attorneys Office, argued that the trial court erred in convicting them despite the fact that the prosecution failed to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence. [42] The accused-appellants centered their argument on the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish a continuous unbroken chain of custody of evidence. [43] The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that police operatives acted in accordance with Section 21, Art. II of R.A. 9165 in preserving the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. [44] The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 259, dated March 5, 2008 is, in light of the foregoing discussion, AFFIRMED. [45] The appellate court ruled that the evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully prosecute a case for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, namely, (1) that the transaction or sale actually took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [46] It trusted the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. [47] Finally, it upheld as unbroken the chain of custody of evidence as presented by the prosecution. [48] In this appeal, accused-appellants, repeat their arguments before the appellate court with the addition in its supplemental brief of citation of instances which supposedly prove the break in the chain of custody