PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMONITO B. ASIGNAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Asignar

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ramonito Asignar, a criminal appeal from a conviction for violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused was charged in three separate informations — for the illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of Article II, for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of Article II, and for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Article II. The case matters because it gathers, in one decision, the elements of the three most commonly prosecuted drug offenses and the evidentiary rules that decide them: the buy-bust sale, the presumption arising from possession, and the weight given to the trial court's findings of fact.

Procedural History

Separate informations were filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, and the cases were consolidated. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him on all three charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in its decision dated the thirty-first of May, 2012. The accused then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal. Both parties manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs and would adopt the briefs filed before the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Facts

On the twenty-fourth of August, 2004, at about a quarter to seven in the morning, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Cebu City. A police officer acted as the poseur-buyer, accompanied by an informant. The accused came out to meet them and himself handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummated the buy-bust transaction.

The substance bought by the poseur-buyer, together with three other plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline substance, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, per the chemistry report issued by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. The three packets with traces of shabu, along with two disposable lighters used as an improvised burner and one plastic paraphernalia for repacking shabu, were taken from the accused.

The accused raised the defense of extortion. The Court of Appeals found that this defense rested solely on his own testimony, with no witness presented to corroborate it. He could have presented his mother-in-law, or any of his nieces or nephews who he claims were nearby when he was brought to the hut, but he did not.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the prosecution established all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, including the accused's free and conscious possession.
• Whether or not the accused's defense of extortion can overcome the evidence of the prosecution.
• Whether or not the findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, should be disturbed on appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, provides:

That on August 24, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer the following: one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet of 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance placed in a plastic pack locally knowns as "shabu" containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

This is the charge of illegal sale, which requires proof of the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.

Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on illegal possession of dangerous drugs, provides:

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in possession and under his control the following: three (3) transparent plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline substance locally knowns as "shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

This is the charge of illegal possession, which requires that the accused was in possession of a prohibited drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that he freely and consciously possessed it.

Section 12 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on the possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, provides:

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in possession and under his control the following: two (2) disposable lighters used as an improvised burner one plastic paraphernalia for repacking shabu which are instruments and/or equipments fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.

This is the charge of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, which the trial court found established by the seizure of the lighters and the repacking paraphernalia from the accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu were established. The poseur-buyer positively identified the accused as the person who came out to meet him and dealt with him and the informant during the buy-bust operation. It was the accused himself who gave the plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance, and the chemistry report confirmed it was methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The Court stressed that what is material is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of the seized item as part of the corpus delicti, meaning the body of the crime.

On the second issue, the Court held that all the elements of illegal possession were likewise established. Incident to his lawful arrest, when he was frisked, three plastic packets containing traces of the dangerous drug were taken from his possession. The Court declared that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, meaning the intent to possess, sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of proof then shifts to the accused to show that he has a license or permit under law to possess the prohibited drug. The accused failed to explain his possession, and he was misled in his belief that the burden to prove the lack of license or permit lay with the prosecution.

On the third issue, the Court held that the defense of extortion is greatly disfavored, because extortion can easily be concocted and fabricated. The accused failed to present any corroborating witness, and so he was not able to strengthen an already weak defense.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect from appellate courts and should not be disturbed on appeal unless for cogent reasons. These findings, so long as supported by evidence on record, are not to be disturbed unless there are some facts or evidence which the trial court had misappreciated or overlooked, and which if considered would have altered the results of the entire case. The Court saw no reason to depart from this principle.

Doctrine

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, only the following elements are essential: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of the seized item as part of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that the accused is in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; that such possession is not authorized by law; and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession, and the burden of proof shifts to the accused to show that he has a license or permit under law to possess the prohibited drug.

The defense of extortion is greatly disfavored, because it can easily be concocted and fabricated. Findings of fact of the trial court, when supported by evidence on record, are entitled to great weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless for cogent reasons.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that mere possession of a prohibited drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, shifting the burden to the accused to show a license or permit. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of the illegal sale of shabu, the presumption arising from possession, and the rule that the defense of extortion, uncorroborated, will not overcome the findings of the trial court.