CA: Drug convicts stay in jail

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals has denied the appeal filed by two men convicted by the lower court for possession of shabu.

In his decision, Executive Justice Gabriel Ingles said there is valid ground to reverse the conviction of Alexto Daño and Sonny Lopez for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

“In sum, proof beyond reasonable doubt, as found by the Regional Trial Court was established against accused-appellants. Finding no showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied, we find no cogent reason to overturn the trial court’s judgment,” Ingles’ decision reads.

Daño and Lopez were arrested on June 29, 2008 at M. dela Concepcion Street, Suba, Cebu City. The arrest were actually incidental as the police were still verifying reports of illegal gambling operation in the barangay.

Senior Police Officer 1 Alfredo Petallar said upon entry to the area, he saw Daño hand over a small transparent plastic pack to Lopez. When he started approaching the two, a bystander shouted “police!” prompting Lopez to drop the plastic pack to the ground.

Police Officer 3 Regalado dela Victoria and Police Officer 2 Joseph Bugtai then arrested the two suspects.

Both Daño and Lopez denied the charges, saying they were not in possession of shabu when they were arrested and that they did not know each other.

The RTC, however, ruled against them and sentenced them to 15 years in jail. They were also fined P300,000.

Daño and Lopez then sought refuge with the appellate court, claiming the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

But Ingles did not find the appeal meritorious.

“We concur with the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution was able to show that the chain of custody was never broken. A careful review of the records supports this finding. The requirements of the law have been substantially established in this case,” Ingles said.

Ingles, likewise, ruled that accused-appellants’ defense is mere denial, which failed the positive identification and declarations made by the prosecution witnesses. He added that well-settled is the rule that greater weight is given to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses rather than the denial of the accused.  (FREEMAN)