THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 196962. June 8, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAN SONJACO

Y STA. ANA , accused-appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ , J : p

Before us for review is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 03211 dated 27 October 2010, which dismissed the appeal of appellant Joan
Sonjaco y Sta. Ana and af rmed the Judgment 2 dated 10 July 2007 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65 of the City of Makati in Criminal Case Nos. 05-1506 and
05-1507, nding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No.
9165, to wit:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-1506
That on or about the 6th day of August 2005, in the City of Makati,
Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute, and transport zero point zero
one (0.01) gram of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride which is a dangerous
drug in consideration of two hundred (Php200.00) pesos. 3
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-1507
That on or about the 6th day of August 2005, in the City of Makati,
Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous
drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession zero point one ve
(0.15) gram of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride which is a dangerous drug. 4
At her arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. Joint
trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Of cer 1 Honorio Marmonejo, Jr.
(PO1 Marmonejo) who acted as the poseur-buyer and PO1 Percieval Mendoza (PO1
Mendoza), a member of the buy-bust team. The prosecution and the defense agreed to
dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemical Of ces Sharon Lontoc Fabros of the
Philippine National Police Laboratory who examined the seized drugs.
The prosecution established that based on information received on 6 August
2005, that appellant and a certain alias Kenkoy were engaged in illegal drug trade in
Pateros Street, Barangay Olympia, Makati City, Police Superintendent Marieto Valerio
(P/Supt. Valerio) formed a buy-bust team composed of PO1 Marmonejo, PO1
Mendoza, PO1 Randy Santos and SPO3 Luisito Puno and two (2) other anti-drug agents
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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. PO1 Marmonejo was designated as poseur-buyer and two (2)
pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100) bills marked with the initials "MMV" were provided
for the operation. At ve 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 PO1 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
PO1 Marmonejo in exchange for two (2) One Hundred Peso (P100) bills. Appellant
pocketed the other plastic sachet. 5
Upon consummation of the transaction, PO1 Marmonejo revealed that he was a
police of cer and immediately apprehended appellant, apprised her of her
constitutional rights and asked her to empty her pockets. PO1 Marmonejo recovered
money in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Pesos (P540.00), a mobile phone, and three
(3) other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Marmonejo
marked the sachet sold to him as "BONG" while the three (3) other sachets as "JOAN,"
"JOAN 1," and JOAN 2." Appellant was brought to the police station for investigation
and PO1 Marmonejo submitted the seized sachets to the Southern Police District
Crime Laboratory. 6 The Forensic Laboratory Report 7 con rmed that the sachets
contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The sachets of shabu
purchased and recovered from appellant, 8 the inventory of the seized items, 9 the
marked buy-bust money 10 and the Final Police Investigation Report 11 were likewise
presented in court.
Appellant testi ed on her behalf and vehemently denied the indictment. She
claimed innocence and asserted that she had been at her mother-in-law's house when
three (3) police of cers entered the house and forcibly brought her to the police station
and there attempted to extort money from her in exchange for her liberty. 12
On 10 July 2007, the RTC rendered judgment nding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 05-1506, the [c]ourt nds accused JOAN SONJACO
GUILTY of the charge for violation of Sec. 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 and sentences
her to suffer LIFE imprisonment and to pay a ne of FIVE Hundred Thousand
(P500,000.00) pesos;
2. In Criminal Case No. 05-1507, the [c]ourt nds accused JOAN SONJACO
y STA. ANA GUILTY of the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Article II, R.A. 9165
and sentences her to suffer the indeterminate sentence of Twelve (12) years
and one (1) day as minimum to Fourteen (14) Years and one (1) day as
maximum and to pay a fine of THREE Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos.
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drug subject matter of this case be disposed of in the
manner provided for by law. 13
Appellant moved for a reconsideration of the case which the RTC denied. 14 The
RTC reiterated that the testimony of the poseur-buyer suf ciently established all the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 elements of the crimes charged. The other witness could not be expected to
corroborate the poseur-buyer's testimony on all the material points as the former only
served as support of cer. More importantly, the inconsistencies are too minor to cause
a dent on the credibility of both prosecution witnesses. The RTC further said that the
inventory sheet of the seized items from appellant, witnessed by two disinterested
persons, belies any claim of irregularity. Lastly, the certi cation faxed by PDEA two (2)
hours after the buy-bust operation evidenced an actual coordination earlier made.
Appellant led a Notice of Appeal on 10 January 2008. 15 On 27 October 2010,
the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed judgment af rming the RTC's decision. The
Court of Appeals found appellant guilty of the crimes charged, or violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Appellant appealed his conviction before this Court. In a Resolution 16 dated 14
September 2011, appellant and the Of ce of the Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to
le their respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties dispensed with
the filing of supplemental briefs. 17
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
The prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty the following
elements required for all prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) proof that
the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
or the illicit drug as evidence. 18 Appellant was apprehended, indicted and convicted by
way of a buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution
of their criminal plan. 19 The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction which
happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. The crime is already
consummated once the police of cer has gone through the operation as a buyer whose
offer was accepted by the accused, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to
the former. 20
Appellant was caught in agrante delicto delivering two (2) plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Marmonejo, the poseur buyer, in
exchange for P200.00. PO1 Marmonejo positively identi ed appellant in open court to
be the same person who sold to him the items which upon examination was con rmed
to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or sbabu. Upon presentation of the same in
open court, another member of the buy-bust team, PO1 Mendoza, duly identi ed the
items to be the same objects sold to the poseur buyer by appellant. 21
On the other hand, to sustain a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object identi ed to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession
is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed said
drug. 22 Obtained through a valid search the police of cers conducted pursuant to
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, 23 the sachets recovered from appellant's
person all tested positive for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Mere
possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi suf cient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory
explanation of such possession. 24 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. 25
Credence was properly accorded to the testimonies of the prosecution
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 witnesses, who are law enforcers. When police of cers have no motive to testify falsely
against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold this presumption. In this case, no
evidence has been presented to suggest any improper motive on the part of the police
enforcers in arresting appellant. We accord great respect to the ndings of the trial
court on the matter of credibility of the witnesses in the absence of any palpable error
or arbitrariness in its ndings. 26 Against the positive testimonies of both prosecution
witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any
credible and convincing evidence simply fails. The defenses of denial and frame-up
have been viewed with disfavor due to the ease of their concoction and the fact that
they have become common and standard defense ploys in prosecutions for illegal sale
and possession of dangerous drugs. 27 The inconsistencies, if any, in their testimonies,
as alleged by appellant, the Court agrees with both the RTC and the appellate court, are
but minor and cannot overturn a conviction established by competent and credible
evidence. It has been settled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate
one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime. 28
Anent the supposed failure to comply with the procedures prescribed by Section
21 of R.A. 9165, jurisprudence has it that non-compliance with these procedures does
not render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. 29 What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of
the accused. 30 The chain of custody requirement ensures the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items in order to remove unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence. 31 In addition to the inventory made of
the seized items, the prosecution was able to prove an unbroken chain of custody of
the illegal drugs from their seizure and marking to their submission to the Southern
Police District Crime Laboratory for analysis, to the identi cation of the same during
the trial of the case. 32 As long as the chain of custody is unbroken, even though the
procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not faithfully observed,
the guilt of the appellant will not be affected. 33
Notably, appellant raised the buy-bust team's alleged non-compliance with
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 only on appeal. Failure to raise this issue during
trial is fatal to the cause of appellant. 34 It has been ruled that when a party desires the
court to reject the offered evidence, he must so state in objection form. Without such
objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. 35
R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 prescribes
life imprisonment to death and a ne ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 as
penalties for violations of Section 5, Article II thereof. The passage of Republic Act No.
9346 proscribes the imposition of the death penalty, 36 thus the appellate court
correctly af rmed the penalty of life imprisonment and ne of P500,000.00 prescribed
by the RTC. Under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, illegal possession of less than
five (5) grams of shabu is penalized with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable penalty shall
not fall below the minimum period set by law and the maximum period shall not exceed
the maximum period allowed under the law. 37 The Court of Appeals likewise correctly
af rmed the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum
term to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as maximum term, together with the ne of
P300,000.00 imposed by the RTC.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The Decision dated 27 October 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
03211 af rming the conviction of Joan Sonjaco y Sta. Ana by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 65, of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 05-1506 and 05-1507 for violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing her to suffer
respectively, the penalty of life imprisonment and a ne of P500,000.00, and the
indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to
fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as maximum term and a ne of P300,000.00, is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Peralta, * J., is on official leave.
Jardeleza, ** J., is on wellness leave.
Footnotes

* On Official Leave.
** On Wellness Leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-24; Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate
Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Japar B. Dimaampao concurring.
2. Records, pp. 97-103; Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Eugene C. Paras.

3. Id. at 3.
4. Id. at 4.

5. Id. at 170-181; TSN, 19 October 2005; id. at 269-275; TSN, 21 February 2007.
6. Id. at 182-183; TSN, 21 February 2007.
7. Id. at 83.

8. Id. at 71-72; Formal Offer of Evidence, Exhibits "N," "O," "P" and "Q."
9. Id. at 81; Exhibit "H."

10. Id. at 76; Exhibits "D" and "E."

11. Id. at 79; Exhibit "G."

12. Id. at 387-393; TSN, 24 April 2007.

13. Id. at 103.
14. Id. at 129; Order dated 8 January 2008.

15. Id. at 132.

16. Rollo, p. 32.

17. Id. at 34-41.

18. People v. Almeida, 463 Phil. 637, 647 (2003).

19. Cruz v. People, 597 Phil. 722, 728 (2009).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 20. People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011).

21. Records, p. 160; TSN, 19 October 2005; id. at 279-280; TSN, 21 February 2007.
22. People v. Concepcion, 414 Phil. 247, 255 (2001).
23. Section 13. Search incident to a lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

24. Asiatico v. People, 673 Phil. 74, 81 (2011).

25. Abuan v. People, 536 Phil. 672, 695 (2006).
26. People v. Buenaventura, 677 Phil. 230, 240 (2011).

27. People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461, 475 (2011).

28. People v. Cruz, 623 Phil. 261, 276 (2009).
29. See People v. Daria, 615 Phil. 744, 758 (2009).
30. People v. Amansec , 678 Phil. 831, 856 (2011) citing People v. Campomanes , 641 Phil.
610, 622-623 (2010).
31. People v. Dela Rosa, 655 Phil. 630, 650 (2011).
32. Records, pp. 279-294; TSN, 21 February 2007.

33. People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427, 442 (2010).

34. People v. Torres, 710 Phil. 398, 412 (2013).
35. People v. Sta. Maria, 545 Phil. 520, 534 (2007).
36. People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 979-980 (2008).
37. Sy v. People, 671 Phil. 164, 182 (2011).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com