9~

31\epublic of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme QCourt

Jl!lanila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
P laintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 200797

Present:
CARPIO, Chairperson
VELASCO, JR., *
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.

- versus -

MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL,

Accused-Appellant.

Promulgated:
JAN 1 2 2015

x---------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Appellant Manolito Opiana y Tanael was charged with the crimes of
violations of Section 5 (sale of illegal drugs; 0.05 gram) and Section 11
(possession of dangerous drugs; 0.74 gram), both of Article II, Republic Act No.
9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The facts of the case showed that on April 8, 2008, the Makati police
officers and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) operatives conducted an
entrapment/buy-bust operation on appellant who was reportedly engaged in illegal
drug trade in Brgy. Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. MADAC operative Sherwin
Sydney Serrano (Serrano) acted as poseur-buyer. After having been introduced by
the informant as a "scorer" of shabu, appellant and Serrano negotiated for the sale
of P300.00 worth of shabu. Serrano gave appellant the P300 marked money and
in exchange, appellant handed to Serrano a heat-sealed sachet containing white
crystalline substance. After making the pre-arranged signal, appellant was
apprehended and when bodily frisked, 19 heat-sealed sachets were recovered from
his possession. Laboratory examination revealed that all 20 heat-sealed sachets
yielded positive results for shabu~
Per Special Order No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.

Resolution

G.R. No. 200797

Appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that on April 8, 2008,
he was repairing a vehicle in front of his house when a green van arrived and three
(3) men alighted. When he affirmatively answered to their query whether he is
Noli, he was immediately arrested. He asserted that the police officers mistook
him as the Noli who was known to be a drug peddler in their area. He argued
that he is known in their place as Noli Mekaniko, and not the drug peddler.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
In a Decision dated May 26, 2009, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 65, convicted appellant of violations of Sections 5 (sale of illegal drugs)
and 11 (possession of dangerous drugs), Article II of RA 9165. It ratiocinated
thus:
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1)
identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and 2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x The delivery of the
illegal drugs subject of the sale and the receipt of the marked money consummate
the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. It is
therefore important to prove only that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs. x x x
xxxx
After a prudent consideration, the court finds that the prosecution
succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the crime of violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the
collective evidence presented during the trial by the prosecution adequately
established that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted by the operatives of the
MADAC as well as the SAID-SOTF, Makati City on April 8, 2008 after proper
coordination with the PDEA was made x x x. During the operation, 0.05 gram of
shabu x x x was purchased by MADAC operative Serrano from accused
Manolito Opiana in consideration of P300.00. The results of the laboratory test
confirmed that the item contained in the said plastic sachet which was bought
from the accused was indeed methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu x x x.
There can be no gainsaying the credibility of the forensic chemist who conducted
the laboratory examination on the specimen. In fact, nothing was adduced or
intimated that the said prosecution witness had reason to fabricate or concoct her
findings.
Likewise, there can be no question about the identity of the corpus delicti
in the instant case for sale of illegal drugs. The small plastic sachet containing
shabu marked as WIN which was brought to and identified in court was
found to be the same plastic sachet of shabu which the prosecution witness,
MADAC operative Serrano, purchased from the accused during the buy-bust
operation. Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Bobier testified and confirmed having signed the
inventory sheet x x x of the items seized from the accused in his presence.
Therefore, the integrity and evidentiary value of the items confiscated and/or
purchased from the accused had been well safeguarded as to be reliable.

Resolution

G.R. No. 200797

Needless to state, the identity of the accused was positively established in open
court by the witnesses for the prosecution who pointed to him as the same person
who was apprehended during the buy-bust operation.
Moreover, the prosecution adequately established the existence of all the
elements for the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section
11, Article II of the same Act, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of the
object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug x x x.
It has been ruled that there can be no conviction for the subject offense
unless the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed the
prohibited articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present
together with his possession or control of such article x x x. Based on the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, however, it was clearly shown that
nineteen (19) plastic sachets containing shabu x x x were recovered from the
accused. The contents thereof were later examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory
and were found to be in fact methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The
accused had no authority to possess or otherwise use said dangerous drugs;
neither did he have any license or prescription to possess the same. The intention
of the accused to possess the said plastic sachets containing shabu was patent
considering that these were found in his person after a routine body search was
conducted. It is also beyond cavil that he possessed the said plastic sachets
containing shabu freely and consciously.
The inventory of the items seized from the accused and the testimony in
open court of Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Bobier, an elected official, bolstered the claim
of the prosecution that a buy-bust operation was conducted by operatives of the
MADAC as well as SAID-SOTF, Makati City, which operation resulted in the
arrest of the accused. It is settled that in cases involving violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. x x x1

The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 08-542, the court finds the accused, MANOLITO
OPIANA y TANAEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for
violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 08-543, the court finds the same accused,
MANOLITO OPIANA y TANAEL, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
charge for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as
minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum and to pay a
1

Records, pp. 112-114.

Resolution

G.R. No. 200797

fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).

The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the
manner provided by law.
SO ORDERED.2

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In his Brief,
appellant alleged that the buy-bust team did not observe the proper procedure
governing the handling, custody and disposition of the illegal drugs. In particular,
he contended that there was a gap in the chain of custody as it was unclear what
happened to the specimen after it was delivered to the crime laboratory and
examined by the forensic chemist or how it was brought to the court. The defense
also lamented the failure of the police officers to secure a search warrant or
warrant of arrest despite ample time to do the same.
Unpersuaded, the CA, in its June 30, 2011 Decision, ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant appeal is
DENIED. The Decision dated 26 May 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.3

The CA opined that based on the testimony of MADAC operative Serrano,

all the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, i.e., that a sale transaction
took place and the illicit drug was presented in court, were satisfactorily proved.
More important, the integrity and evidentiary value of the illicit drug were
properly preserved, viz:
x x x [T]he marking of the evidence was testified to by Serrano whereas
the testimony of the investigator x x x was stipulated upon by the prosecution and
the defense. The recovered items were turned over to PO1 Randy C. Santos
upon his conduct of investigation. The request for laboratory examination was
delivered by PO1 Gimena on 08 April 2008 at 2125H and the same was received
by PSI Jocelyn J. Belen whose testimony was likewise stipulated upon.
Although there has been no photographs taken and no testimony as to what
happened with the evidence after the same was submitted for laboratory
examination, the same was positively identified by Serrano during trial. x x x4
2

Id. at 114; penned by Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.

CA rollo, p. 154; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and concurred in by Associate Justices
Amelita G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizarro.
4
Id. at 91.
3

Resolution

G.R. No. 200797

Anent the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the CA also
found that the prosecution satisfactorily established all the elements thereof, to wit:
1) that the accused is in possession of a prohibited drug; 2) such possession is not
sanctioned by law; and 3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the illegal
drugs. In addition, the CA found no ill-motives on the part of the police
operatives.
In an April 25, 2012 Resolution,5 we required both parties to file their
respective supplemental briefs. However, both opted to adopt the briefs they
submitted before the CA.
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the
appeal to be lacking in merit. Both the RTC of Makati City, Branch 65 and
the CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA
9346.6 For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution satisfactorily
established the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.7
Similarly, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements for the
illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, to wit: appellant
was shown to have been in possession of 0.74 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug;
his possession was not authorized by law; and that he freely and consciously
possessed the said illegal drug.
Under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of
its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346, only life
imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the penalty imposed by the trial
court and affirmed by the CA, i.e., life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, is
proper. However, appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, on the other hand, is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00, if the
quantity of the dangerous drug is less than five (5) grams. In this case, appellant
was found to have been in illegal possession of 0.74 gram of shabu. Thus, he was
5

Rollo, pp. 39-40.

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
7
People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).
6

Resolution

G.R. No. 200797

properly meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to 14 years and eight (8) months and a fine ofln00,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the June 30, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.. Appellant Manolito Opiana y Tanael is
hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violations of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic
Act No. 9346, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
without eligibility for parole and ordering him to pay the fine of P500,000.00, for
violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and
a fine of P300,000.00, for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No.
9165.
SO ORDERED.

,.,.

~~~~~.,Y
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIOT.C
Associate Justice
Chairperson

PRESBITER0 J. VELASCO, JR.

,MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate .Justice

OZA

Resolution

G.R. No. 200797

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

ChiefJustice

,,#A