People v. Perez (G.R. No. 230910. November 20, 2017)
CASE DIGEST: People of the Philippines v. Marcelina Perez y Doria. November 20, 2017. G.R. No. 230910.
FACTS: On June 29, 2012, accused-appellant was charged in two Informations for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
On May 13, 2015, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty as charged. The RTC found that all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were duly established as the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto via a buy-bust operation. The RTC stated that the defense of denial raised by accused-appellant, who had been under surveillance by the police officers prior to the buy-bust operation, cannot overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
On appeal, the CA, in a Decision, affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA was in unison with the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were duly established and all the links in the chain of custody in order to preserve the integrity of the seized items have been carefully observed. The CA rejected accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up as her version of the event was riddled with narrations contrary to human nature and experience.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusion of law in the Decision, dated October 14, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07495, finding accused-appellant Marcelina Perez y Doria GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and AFFIRMSsaid decision in toto.
On May 13, 2015, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty as charged. The RTC found that all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were duly established as the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto via a buy-bust operation. The RTC stated that the defense of denial raised by accused-appellant, who had been under surveillance by the police officers prior to the buy-bust operation, cannot overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
On appeal, the CA, in a Decision, affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA was in unison with the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were duly established and all the links in the chain of custody in order to preserve the integrity of the seized items have been carefully observed. The CA rejected accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up as her version of the event was riddled with narrations contrary to human nature and experience.
HELD: After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure of the accused-appellant to sufficiently show reversible error in the challenged decision warranting the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusion of law in the Decision, dated October 14, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07495, finding accused-appellant Marcelina Perez y Doria GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and AFFIRMSsaid decision in toto.
