GR 181599; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181599 ; August 20, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SALVADOR DUMLAO y AGLIAM, alias “PANDORA”, appellant.
FACTS
On October 29, 2002, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Asingan, Pangasinan. Police officers, after surveillance confirming appellant Salvador Dumlao’s illegal activities, designated SPO1 Natividad as the poseur-buyer. Accompanied by informants, Natividad approached Dumlao, handed him two marked 100-peso bills, and received a plastic sachet in return. Upon consummation of the sale, Dumlao was arrested. Forensic examination confirmed the sachet contained 0.07 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Dumlao presented a contrasting version. He testified that he was merely sitting by the road after entertaining visitors when a person beside him, later identified as Natividad, arrested him upon a shout from across the road. He claimed no drugs or marked money were recovered from him and that he only learned of the charge later. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dumlao of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 , a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Dumlao’s conviction despite alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the non-presentation of certain police documents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the illicit drug and the payment. The positive identification by the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary, prevailed over Dumlao’s bare denial. The alleged inconsistencies in SPO1 Natividad’s testimony pertained to minor details that did not undermine the core narrative of the buy-bust operation.
Furthermore, the non-presentation of pre-operation reports or the marked money itself did not weaken the case. The chain of custody over the seized drug was established, and the forensic chemist’s report confirming the substance as shabu enjoyed a presumption of regularity. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight. Dumlao’s uncorroborated defense of frame-up could not overcome the consistent and credible testimony of the police officers involved in the legitimate buy-bust operation.