G.R. No. 146309 ; July 18, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROBERTO MENDOZA PACIS, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on April 6, 1998, NBI agents received information that appellant Roberto Mendoza Pacis was offering to sell shabu. An entrapment operation was approved. An agent, acting as a poseur-buyer, met with Pacis at his residence in Pasig City, where they negotiated the sale of half a kilogram of shabu for P450,000, with delivery set for the following day. On April 7, 1998, the buy-bust operation proceeded at the agreed location. Pacis handed over a paper bag containing a plastic bag with white crystalline substance. Upon receiving the marked money, he was arrested. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was 497.2940 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different account. Pacis claimed he was in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, on April 6 and 7, 1998, with a witness, Ramon Ty, making it impossible for him to have been in Pasig City negotiating and selling drugs. He alleged the NBI agents forcibly entered his condominium unit and planted the evidence. He denied any involvement in the drug trade, asserting he was a legitimate businessman.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming his defenses of denial, alibi, and frame-up.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the validity of the entrapment operation, which led to the appellant’s arrest in flagrante delicto. The positive and categorical testimonies of the NBI agents, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly, clearly established all elements of the sale of illegal drugs: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illicit goods. The forensic report conclusively identified the seized substance as shabu.
The Court rejected the defenses of denial and alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. Pacis failed to substantiate his claim with corroborative evidence from the persons he allegedly met in Pangasinan. His bare denial could not overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, who were not shown to have any ill motive. The defense of frame-up was likewise dismissed for lack of clear and convincing proof. The trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility was accorded great respect. Thus, the guilt of Roberto Mendoza Pacis for violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.