Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81791:191396&catid=1569&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:51:33+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 191396, April 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO, Accused-Appellant.
Aguilar pleaded not guilty to both charges when arraigned on January 10, 2005.5 During the pre-trial conference6 on February 16, 2005, Aguilar and her counsel admitted the genuineness and due execution of the Letter Request for Drug Test, Initial Laboratory Report, Request for Laboratory Examination, and photocopy of the marked money in evidence. Counsel for Aguilar also admitted Aguilar’s identity as the one arrested by the police officers on November 30, 2004, as indicated in the Informations. The parties also agreed that among the issues to be resolved by the RTC were the validity of Aguilar’s arrest and the subsequent search of her person absent the necessary warrants.
Trial then ensued with the prosecution presenting Police Officer 2 (PO2) Roel Medrano, the poseur-buyer who was a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned at the Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operation Task Force of the Southern Police District at Fort Bonifacio in Taguig, Manila. It also presented Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Angel Timario, the Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City who conducted the examination of the drugs. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense presented Aguilar herself and her niece, Gerolyn A. Lazaro (Lazaro).
To determine the presence of dangerous drugs.
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Specimens A-1 and A-2 contain Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
2) In Criminal Case No. 04-2963-CFM, this Court likewise finds the said accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, plus costs.
Aguilar’s denial and theory of frame-up, the RTC held, cannot be accepted over the prosecution’s case, which was not only clear and convincing, but also amply supported by the evidence.
Aguilar appealed17 the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals and the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01984.
Finding that the prosecution has proven Aguilar’s guilt of the two crimes beyond reasonable doubt, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s Decision on November 26, 2009.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II [OF] REPUBLIC ACT [NO.] 9165.
In the main, Aguilar argues that the RTC erred in convicting her as the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In support of such assertion, Aguilar points out the fact that the police officers failed to follow the protocol in the custody and control of seized items due to the absence of an inventory and photographs of the confiscated drugs as required by Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations.
This Court has made an exhaustive review of the records of this case and has found no reason to overturn the lower courts.
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or “ecstasy,” paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or ”shabu,” or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstasy,” PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
As the poseur-buyer, PO2 Medrano was able to positively identify28 Aguilar as the seller of the shabu during his testimony. He also testified on the exchange of the marked money and shabu that he and Aguilar had during their transaction. More importantly, the prosecution was able to present the very same marked money and shabu, the corpus delicti, to the court as evidence.
Aside from the shabu Aguilar sold to PO2 Medrano, another sachet of shabu was recovered in her possession. Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to possess, animus possidendi, sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence, thus, is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of intent to possess.30 Aguilar miserably failed to discharge such burden.
Time and again, this Court has looked at the defenses of denial and frame-up with disfavor. While Aguilar’s niece, Lazaro, did testify in her defense, this Court, in agreement with the observation of the Court of Appeals, cannot give such testimony full faith and credit as Lazaro herself declared that she would testify on anything for her aunt31 and she came to court to help in the release of her aunt.32 This admission of absolute willingness to make declarations in court for the singular purpose of judicial proceedings to ascertain the truth and adversely affects the credibility of the witness.
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators become co-principals themselves.
This Court recognizes instigation as a valid defense that can be raised by the accused. However, for this defense to prosper, the accused must prove, with sufficient evidence, that the government induced him or her to commit the offense.36 Aguilar claims that she was instigated by the informant to sell shabu to PO2 Medrano. Her only evidence to support this claim was her interpretation of PO2 Medrano’s testimony.
In Legaspi, we added: “[t]he foregoing are especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or the instigation of the police officer.”38 The illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs belong to such class of cases and buy-bust operations employing poseur-buyers are legally permissible to expose the offender and catch him in the act.
It is worthy to note that, aside from the fact that this defense was only brought up on appeal, it is being submitted along with the defenses of denial and frame-up. Aguilar cannot logically claim on one hand that she did not commit the acts constituting the charges against her, and at the same time ask this Court to consider that while she may have committed the act, she had been instigated to commit such crime. The defense of instigation is simply contradictory to the defenses of denial42 and frame-up.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the November 26, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01984.
1Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 18-26; penned by Judge Eleuterio F. Guerrero.
7 TSN, March 21, 2005, p. 6.
12 TSN, August 3, 2005, p. 4.
15 TSN, May 17, 2005, pp. 4-12.
16 CA rollo, pp. 25-26.
20 CA rollo, p. 36.
22People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 393, 404-405.
23People v. Malik Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013.
25People v. Castro, supra note 22 at 407.
27 G.R. No. 188107, December 5, 2012.
28 TSN, March 21, 2005, p. 23.
29Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 443, 450.
30People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 716.
31 TSN, May 17, 2005, p. 13.
33People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 286, 301-302.
34 CA rollo, pp. 44-47.
35 G.R. No. 173485, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 171, 180.
40 TSN, March 21, 2005, p. 18.
41People v. Legaspi, supra note 35 at 182.

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