G.R. No. 189327 ; February 29, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On May 12, 2003, based on a tip from a confidential informant, a buy-bust team was formed by the Special Operations Group of the Western Police District in Manila. Police Officer Randy Ching acted as the poseur-buyer and was given a marked ₱500 bill. The team proceeded to Benita St., Gagalangin, Tondo. The informant introduced Ching to accused-appellant Emily Mendoza. Ching informed Mendoza he wanted to buy ₱500 worth of shabu, to which Mendoza handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Ching gave the marked money and signaled his team, leading to Mendoza’s arrest. The seized item was marked “SOG-1” and submitted for examination, which tested positive for 0.159 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Mendoza presented a different version, claiming she was merely waiting in front of her house when an unknown man asked her about a shabu pusher. She denied any knowledge and claimed she was forcibly taken to the police station after refusing to pay an alleged extortion attempt of ₱50,000. She insisted the sale never occurred and that she was framed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Mendoza’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is whether the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti have been preserved. The Court found that the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crime: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the police officers, particularly PO3 Ching, were clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the buy-bust operation from the initial transaction to the marking of the seized item. The defense of denial and frame-up, which Mendoza failed to substantiate with clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive identification by the police officers. The Court also noted that the lack of prior surveillance or a prior test-buy does not invalidate a buy-bust operation, especially when, as here, the sale was completed through the coordinated efforts of the team. The defense’s claim of extortion was deemed implausible given Mendoza’s admission of being an urban poor resident with no means of income, making it unlikely she was targeted for a ₱50,000 payoff. The chain of custody over the seized drug was likewise maintained, as the item was immediately marked at the scene and submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed its illicit nature.