Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=82628:56475&amp;catid=1576&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:11:27+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 203433, November 27, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FAISAL LOKS Y PELONYO, Accused–Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FAISAL LOKS Y PELONYO, Accused–Appellant.
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated February 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. CR–H.C. No. 04129, which affirmed the Decision2 dated June 11, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 23 finding accused–appellant Faisal Loks y Pelonyo (Loks) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused, FAISAL LOKS Y PELONYO @ Feisal, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Violation of Section 5 Article II of RA 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]500,000.00).
The one (1) heat–sealed transparent plastic sachet with white crystalline substance, containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride known as shabu, a dangerous drug, subject matter of this case, is hereby confiscated in favor of the State and ordered turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its eventual destruction pursuant to existing Rules. No cost.
Dissatisfied, Loks appealed the RTC decision to the CA which, in the Decision15 dated February 13, 2012, affirmed the rulings of the RTC. Hence, this appeal.
In the case under consideration, all these elements have been established. The witnesses for the prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. The poseur buyer (SPO1 Velasco) positively identified accused as the seller of the shabu. He categorically testified about the buy–bust operation – from the time he was introduced by the informant to accused as the buyer of the shabu; to the time when accused agreed to the sale; to the actual exchange of the marked money and the heat–sealed sachet containing a white crystalline substance; and until the apprehension of accused. His testimony was corroborated by SPO1 Ramos.
“It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of [R.A. No. 9165], 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.”22 In this case, the RTC gave greater weight to the testimonies of the police officers who testified against Loks, a ruling which even the CA affirmed on appeal. Upon review, the Court has determined that the testimony of SPO1 Velasco, who was the poseur–buyer in the sale and thus armed with sufficient personal knowledge on the transaction, indeed established Lok’s sale of the illegal drug and the validity of his arrest.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. CR–H.C. No. 04129 is AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; CA rollo, pp. 85–92.
2 Issued by Judge Caroline Rivera–Colasito; id. at 48–52.
9 Referred to as SPO1 Fama in some pleadings.
10 CA rollo, p. 15.
16 G.R. No. 180919, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 289.
17 Id. at 299, citing People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 173485, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 171, 185.
18 CA rollo, pp. 16–17.
19People v. Salcedo, G.R. No. 186523, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 635, 645, citing People v. Flores, G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 478, 488.
20 G.R. No. 171018, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 477.
22People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 707, 726; People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 336.
23People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 188, 199, citing People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 85 (2000).
24People v. Marcelino, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 632, 640.
25Ambre v. People, G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 552, 563.
(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x.
27People v. Aneslag, G.R. No. 185386, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 150, 163.
28 G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 357.
30 417 Phil. 53 (2001).

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