People of The Philippines V Sonjaco
People of The Philippines V Sonjaco
JOAN SONJACO
PONENTE: Perez
FACTS:
Based on information received on 6 August 2005, that appellant and a certain alias
Kenkoy were engaged in illegal drug trade in Barangay Olympia, Makati City, P/Supt.
Valerio formed a buy-bust team composed of POI Marmonejo, POI Mendoza, POI Randy
Santos and SP03 Luisito Puno and two (2) other anti-drug agents Eduardo Monteza and
Herminia Facundo. After a surveillance of the area and coordination with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) were made, P/Supt. Valerio briefed the team. POI
Marmonejo was designated as poseur-buyer and two (2) pieces of Pl00 bills marked with
the initials “MMV” were provided for the operation.
At five o’clock in the afternoon of that day, PO1 Marmonejo and the police asset, on board
a tricycle driven by PO1 Mendoza, proceeded to the target area. The other members of the
buy-bust team positioned themselves nearby. The police asset called appellant and told
her that PO1 Marmonejo wanted to buy shabu. Appellant asked POI Marmonejo how
much, to which he replied, “katorse lang” or P200.00 worth of shabu. Appellant then took
out from her pocket two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline
substance, one of which she handed to POI Marmonejo in exchange for two Pl00 bills.
Appellant pocketed the other plastic sachet.
Upon consummation of the transaction, POI Marmonejo revealed that he was a police
officer. He immediately apprehended appellant, apprised her of her constitutional rights
and asked her to empty her pockets. POI Marmonejo recovered money in the amount of
P540.00, a mobile phone, and three (3) other plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance. POI Marmonejo marked the sachet sold to him as “BONG” while the three (3)
other sachets as “JOAN,” “JOAN l,” and JOAN 2.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
HELD: YES.
In this case, accused was apprehended, indicted and convicted by way of a valid buy-bust
operation.
The Court held that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence
of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence to explain the
absence of animus possidendi rests upon the accused, and this, in the case at bar, the
appellant failed to do.