Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81216:gr-187496-2013&catid=1567&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:53:26+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.MALIK MANALAO y ALAUYA, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal 1 of the November 27,2008 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00173-MIN, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) July 26, 2005 Consolidated Decision3 in Criminal Case Nos. 056-07-2004 and 057-07-2004, wherein accused-appellant MALIK MANALAO y ALAUYA (Manalao) was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Manalao pleaded not guilty to both charges upon his arraignment6 on August 9, 2004.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MALIK MANALAO y ALAUYA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime in violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentences him to a penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. And accused is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt [of] having violated Section 11, Article II, of the same Act, and imposes upon him the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as minimum to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and as fine of P300,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. If in case of possible commutation of sentences or not, he is entitled to the benefits of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, for his preventive imprisonment that he suffered.
The subject Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and/or paraphernalia are ordered confiscated in favor of the government and to be turn[ed] over to the Dangerous Drugs Board within 15 days from date hereof.
Aggrieved, Manalao appealed14 to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded, and on November 27, 2008, it affirmed in toto15 the RTC in its Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00173-MIN.
This Court has reviewed with scrutiny the records of the case and has found no reason to overturn the courts a quo.
It is clear from the records that the prosecution was able to establish the above elements.
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs had been maintained. P/Insp. Salazar, who was one of the apprehending officers, marked the seized items in front of Manalao and the other apprehending officers. P/Insp. Salazar, who was also the investigating officer, thereafter signed a request for the laboratory examination of the seized drugs, which was received by Forensic Chemist Mag-abo, together with the items enumerated therein. She then testified in open court on how her examination confirmed that the seized items, which she submitted in court, tested positive for shabu.
Besides, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity of such evidence had been preserved and that the police officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their duties properly and with regularity remain.32 The burden to overcome such presumptions lies on Manalao, and this Court finds that he failed to do so.
Mere possession of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under Republic Act No. 9165.34 Since Manalao failed to adduce any evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the seized drugs, then he was correctly charged with its illegal possession.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the November 27, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00173-MIN.
2 Id. at 4-11; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 49-62; penned by Presiding Judge Alan L. Flores.
4 Records (Crim. Case No. 056-07-2004), p. 1.
5 Records (Crim. Case No. 057-07-2004), p. 1.
6 Records (Crim. Case No. 056-07-2004), p. 15 and Records (Crim. Case No. 057-07-2004), p. 15.
8 TSN, October 4, 2004.
9 TSN, December 14, 2004, pp. 4-5.
10 Records (Crim. Case No. 056-07-2004), p. 3.
11 TSN, December 14, 2004, pp. 4-14.
12 TSN, March 28, 2005, pp. 3-8.
13 CA rollo, p. 61.
14 Records (Crim. Case No. 056-07-2004), p. 72 and Records (Crim. Case No. 057-07-2004), p. 73.
17 CA rollo, p. 39.
22 People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004).
23 People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196, 202.
24 G.R. No. 173485, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 171, 185.
25 Supra note 23 at 208-209.
26 TSN, March 28, 2005, p. 8.
29 People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133.
30 G.R. No. 189817, October 3, 2012.
31 G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.
32 People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 393, 406.
33 People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342-343.
34 People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 21, 2010, 621 SCRA 327, 344-345.
35 People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 357, 374.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.