What is the case all about?

The case seeks the reversal of the decision promulgated on September 18, 2014,[1] whereby the Court
of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on February 11, 2011 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 25, in Cagayan de Oro City finding the accused-appellant guilty of a violation of Section 5, Article
II, of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and accordingly penalizing
him.

2. What are the facts of the case based on the prosecution’s evidence?

2.1 That on 1 August 2006, PO2 Fred Yasay (PO2 Yasay) received a tip from their confidential informant
that a certain Rogelio Yagao was selling illegal drugs in Zone 4, Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City. The buy-bust
was organized by SPO3 Rico Justalero the team leader;

Buy-bust team members:

SPO3 Rico Justalero

PO2 Fred Yasay

PO2 Joel Deloso,

PO2 Edzel Nacaya,

PO1 Leonard Comilang,

PO2 George Tabian, Jr.,

PO2 Ariel Lig-Ang

PO2 Frederick Yamis.

Furthermore, around 5 p.m. in the afternoon of the same day, PO2 Yasay and the buy-bust team
proceeded to Zone 4, Bugo, Cagayan de Oro to conduct the buy-bust operation PO2 Joel Deloso (PO2
Deloso) and PO2 Yasay would act as the poseurs-buyers Upon their arrival at appellant’s residence, the
confidential informant called upon the former who was at the terrace of his house and asked “Kuha mi
bai” (We will get) So the appellant came down from the terrace and approached the buy-bust team. The
confidential informant then handed Five (5) Twenty (20) Peso bills to appellant. Upon receiving the
money, appellant then got from his right front pocket a cellophane containing dried marijuana leaves, at
this juncture, PO2 Yasay and PO2 Deloso proceeded to grab appellant and told him he was under arrest.
PO2 Deloso then informed appellant of his constitutional rights. Thereafter brought him at Maharlika
police station in Carmen, after that, PO2 Deloso corroborated PO2 Yasay’s testimony and narrated that
at the Maharlika police station, PO2 Sagun marked the sachet which he then signed and initialled. After
the marking, appellant was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City,
where the sachet and marked money were presented for laboratory examination. Appellant’s hands
were likewise subjected to an ultra-violet examination and P/SINSP Efren Miole Camaro requested a
laboratory examination at 19:45 in the evening.

2.2 On the same evening, the following Chemistry Reports were issued by Forensic Chemist Erma
Condino Salvacion, as follows:

- Chemistry Report No. D-173-2006 – finding the specimen contained inside the transparent sachet as
positive for the presence of marijuana issued at 23 3 OH on August 1, 2006,

- Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM-134-2006 – a urine test conducted on appellant yielding a NEGATIVE
result for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and THC- metabolites, issued at 2050H,
August 1, 2006;

- Chemistry Report No. C-42-2006 – which reported the presence of bright yellow ultraviolet fluorescent
powder on the dorsal and palmar portion of appellant’s hand and on the marked money presented for
examination, issued at 2020H in the evening, August 1, 2006.

Forensic Chemist Erma Condino Salvacion testimony was dispensed with following the stipulation of the
parties admitting her testimony.

3. What are the facts of the case based on the defense’s evidence?

3.1 Appellant for his part interposed the defense of denial and frame-up. Appellant said, “he was at the
porch of his house talking to Brenda Villacorta (the cousin of his wife), waiting for the birthday
celebration of his grandchild to start” it is according to him during the time of his “illegal arrest”.

Furthermore, the appellant stated that he abruptly approached by a man who asked him if he had
jumped bail for violating R.A. 6425 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40. The person then allegedly
asked him to go by the roadside after this, when appellant is about to get shirt inside his house he
suddenly noticed several men rushing towards him and after this they forced him out of his house and
board a van.

The appellant stated that he initially brought to the Puerto Police Station and then to the Maharlika
Police Station in Carmen, and according to the appellant statement for the first time he saw Two (2)
packets of marijuana and Two (2) pieces of P20.00 Peso bills. And after that, He was then made to sign a
piece of paper and was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City,
where he was made to give a urine sample and then subjected to an ultra-violet examination.

Additionally, Appellant’s defense of denial and frame-up were corroborated by Brenda Yagao and Art
Manticahon.
4. What is the judgment of the Regional Trial Court? The Court of Appeals? The Supreme Court?

Judgement of Regional Trial Court (RTC)

On February 11, 2011, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drug, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds the accused ROGELIO YAGAO Y LLABAN
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of
R.A. 9165 as charged in the Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of Fine.

The RTC gave their statement, stating; “ Let the penalty imposed on the accused be a lesson and an
example to all who have the same criminal propensity and proclivity to commit the same forbidden act,
that crime does not pay, and that the pecuniary gain and benefit which one can enjoy from selling or
manufacturing or trading drugs, or other illegal substance, or from committing any other acts penalized
under Republic Act 9165, cannot compensate for the penalty which one will suffer if ever he is
prosecuted, convicted, and penalized to the full extent of the law".

The Court of Appeals judgement:

In Court of Appeals the accused-appellant insisted that he had been framed up; and that the
Prosecution did not establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug, as well as the compliance
with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations,
thereby failing to show an unbroken chain of custody. It due to the buy-bust team’s failure to faithfully
comply with the procedures as enshrined in R.A. No. 9165 the appellant’s contention that the marking
of the seized marijuana should have been made in his presence at the crime scene instead of in the
police station, deserves scant consideration, as the failure to do the same did not affect the evidentiary
value or integrity of the seized prohibited drugs; but according to Sec. 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of RA 9165 that in a buy-bust situation, the marking of the dangerous drug may be done
in the presence of the suspect in the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending
team. Additionally the accused-appellant claim in fact, is the procedure when the operation like search
and seizure is conducted with the virtue of warrant In the latter case, the Implementing Rules of RA No.
9165 mandates that the physical inventory and marking of the drugs should be made at the place where
the search warrant is served and implemented.
In Court of Appeals there are elements for a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
the following elements must be established:

Element for the prosecution of Illegal sale of marijuana were sufficiently Established in this case

1) The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
2) The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

Furthermore, Material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction
or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug
in evidence.

Because of these appellant’s defense of denial and frame-up Are self-serving and unavailing in fact it is a
prevailing doctrine that a defense of denial or frame-up cannot prevail against the positive testimony of
a prosecution witness. Due to its unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence
becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary;
comprared to convincing and straightforward testimonies of PO2 Deloso and PO2 Yasay.

Speaking of the Integrity and evidentiary value of the Seized marijuana it is properly

Preserved through the chain of custody according to Court of Appeals.

As for the Court of Appeals judgement, this Court finds no reason to disturb the assailed decision of the
RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited
substance, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED.

Accordingly, the 11 February 2011 Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Cagayan de
Oro City, in Criminal Case No. [2006-484] finding accused-appellant Rogelio Yagao y Llaban (appellant)
guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED

But the case is not close here. Hence, this appeal, in which the parties have respectively manifested
their desire to re-submit the arguments they had made in the CA.

The issue is the accused-appellant’s brief, has assigned the lone error that:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

This led to another hearings.