GR 148048; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148048; January 15, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RADZMA AHMAD y ABDULLAH and AMIN MUSTALI y AHMAD, Appellants.
FACTS
Appellants Radzma Ahmad and Amin Mustali were charged with the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 23, 1999, a police informant reported that a certain “Amin” was looking to sell a large quantity of shabu. A buy-bust operation was planned, with SPO1 Amado Mirasol acting as the poseur-buyer. After initial negotiations with appellant Amin Mustali at a shopping center, a meeting was set for the following day. On September 24, Mirasol, carrying marked money, was instructed by Mustali to proceed to a house at Magsanaw Drive, where he met appellant Radzma Ahmad. Ahmad handed Mirasol four heat-sealed plastic packs containing a white crystalline substance in exchange for the payment. Upon Mirasol’s pre-arranged signal, the arresting team moved in and apprehended the appellants, recovering the drugs and the buy-bust money.
The appellants denied the charges, claiming they were framed. They alleged that police officers forcibly entered Radzma Ahmad’s residence without a warrant, planted the evidence, and arrested them to extort money. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. On appeal, they argued that the warrantless arrest was invalid, the buy-bust operation was a frame-up, and the police failed to properly preserve the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the police officers credible and consistent, detailing a legitimate buy-bust operation. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak, as it requires clear and convincing evidence which the appellants failed to provide. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, which prevailed over the appellants’ bare allegations.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that the procedure was properly observed. The seized drugs were immediately marked at the police station in the presence of the appellants by the team leader, the poseur-buyer, and the investigator. The prosecution established an unbroken chain from the entrapment team to the forensic chemist, whose tests confirmed the substance was shabu. The warrantless arrest was also deemed lawful as it was effected during a valid buy-bust operation, a recognized instance of in flagrante delicto arrest. Consequently, all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.