People v. Arago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 24, 2012, at around 10:00 PM, police officers, based on information from an asset, conducted a buy-bust operation in San Isidro Village, Batangas City. The asset reported that an individual known as 'alias Danica' would deliver shabu worth ₱7,000.00 on consignment. A team was formed, and coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was made. The team proceeded to the area, where the asset identified the appellant, Romulo Arago, Jr. y Como, as 'alias Danica,' arriving on a motorcycle with Kerby De Chavez. Arago alighted, took a pink coin purse from his pocket containing a sachet of suspected shabu, and handed it to the asset, stating, "Yan, pitong libo yan." Immediately, PO2 Alexander N. Olea identified himself as a police officer and arrested Arago. PO3 Jonas Guarda arrested De Chavez, who remained on the motorcycle. The seized sachet and coin purse were marked, photographed, and inventoried. The evidence was turned over to PO1 Pepito Adelantar, and a Certificate of Inventory was accomplished. The specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: An Information was filed against Arago and De Chavez for Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, alleging conspiracy and confederation in transporting or delivering shabu. Both pleaded not guilty. The RTC denied Arago's Demurrer to Evidence but granted De Chavez's, dismissing the case against him. The RTC convicted Arago of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, declaring Arago guilty of illegal delivery of shabu. The CA denied Arago's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Arago appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors regarding the failure to prove payment or consideration for the alleged sale, the alleged inconsistency and incredulity of PO2 Olea's testimony, and the overall failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs due to the absence of monetary consideration, considering the charge also included transportation or delivery. Whether the testimony of PO2 Olea was inconsistent and incredible, and whether the trial court erred in its evaluation of witness credibility. Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the defenses of denial and frame-up were sufficiently refuted.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of Romulo Arago, Jr. y Como for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to prove monetary consideration for illegal sale: The Court clarified that the Information charged the appellant not only with sale but also with transportation or delivery of dangerous drugs. Section 5 of R.A. 9165 punishes, among others, the delivery of dangerous drugs, which is defined as "any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration." Therefore, the prosecution was not required to prove monetary consideration or present marked money to secure a conviction for illegal delivery. The elements of illegal delivery are: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. The Court found that these elements were sufficiently proven by the testimony of PO2 Olea. On the alleged inconsistency and incredulity of PO2 Olea's testimony: The Court reiterated the principle that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses, especially police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The appellant failed to present evidence to refute the testimony and credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court's evaluation of witness credibility, in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. The Court noted that PO2 Olea's testimony was corroborated by PO3 Guarda, and that the nature of the transaction as a 'sale on consignment' or 'delivery' was clearly established, explaining the absence of marked money. On the failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the police officers who caught the appellant in flagrante delicto were given more weight and credence. The defenses of denial and frame-up, which the appellant raised, were considered self-serving and unsubstantiated. The Court emphasized that these defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence, which the appellant failed to present. The positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti, outweighed the appellant's unsubstantiated claims. The Court also affirmed the penalty imposed by the CA as being in accordance with law.
Main Doctrine
The offense of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 is consummated by the act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration. The prosecution need not prove monetary consideration or present marked money for a conviction of illegal delivery.