G.R. No. 199735 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO, ARA MONONGAN Y PAPAO, FAISAH ABAS Y MAMA, AND MIKE SOLALO Y MLOK, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, accused Aiza Musa y Pinasilo, Faisah Abas y Mama and Mike Solano y Mlok, are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph Article II, RA 9165 in relation to Article 62, 2nd paragraph of the Revised Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Ten Million Pesos (PhP 10, 000, 000.00) and to pay the costs. Accused Ara Monongan y Papao is likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay a fine of PhP 500, 000.00 and to pay the costs. The period of preventive suspension is credited in her favor. [9] The RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO1 Memoracion. It found his testimony as candid, straightforward, firm, unwavering, nay credible, since it was not shown that PO1 Memoracion was ill-motivated in testifying as he did in Court against all accused. [10] On the other hand, the RTC rejected accused-appellants defenses of alibi and denial because they failed to present clear and convincing evidence to establish that it was impossible for them to be at the locus criminis at the time of the buy-bust operation. [11] As regards the penalty imposed, the RTC declared each of the accused liable as principal because it found the presence of conspiracy among all four accused. [12] Citing Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, [13] it likewise imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 10 million because of its finding that the offense was committed by an organized/syndicated crime group. However, it reduced the penalty imposed against Monongan because she was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. Ruling of the CA On appeal, all of the accused assailed their conviction and faulted the RTC in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the sale of dangerous drugs. In their Brief, accused-appellants raised doubts on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and questioned the ruling of RTC for rejecting their alibis. They also averred that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense and that the chain of custody rule under RA 9165 was not complied with since no physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken in their presence or in the presence of their counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and an elective official. Furthermore, they refuted the findings of the RTC that conspiracy existed among them, and that they were members of an organized/ syndicated crime group. [14] Notwithstanding, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC but modified the penalty imposed on Monongan, to wit: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated October 7, 2008 of