GR 185848; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185848 ; August 16, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL SEMBRANO y CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On July 26, 2004, a police buy-bust team was formed in Novaliches, Quezon City, based on a tip regarding the drug activities of Michael Sembrano. PO1 Jomar Manaol acted as the poseur-buyer, using two marked PHP 100 bills to purchase shabu from Sembrano. Upon consummation of the sale, the team arrested Sembrano. A subsequent search yielded two more plastic sachets of suspected shabu from his pocket. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed the contents as methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Sembrano presented a different account, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while buying lumber and that the police forced him to sign a document. He denied the drug charges. The Regional Trial Court convicted him for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for illegal possession.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Sembrano’s guilt for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the validity of the warrantless arrest and search as an incident to a lawful arrest following a legitimate buy-bust operation. The prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes. For illegal sale, it proved the transaction where Sembrano sold shabu to the poseur-buyer in exchange for marked money. For illegal possession, it proved he had custody and control over two additional sachets found on his person without legal authority.
The Court found the chain of custody over the seized drugs was preserved. The police officers immediately marked the seized items at the scene, conducted an inventory, and forwarded them to the crime laboratory on the same day for examination. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and failing to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, whose testimonies were consistent and credible. The penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals were sustained.