GR 174067; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174067 ; August 29, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. DANTE JOSE DIVINA, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Dante Jose Divina was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on March 10, 2003, in Pasig City. PO1 Allan Mapula, acting as poseur-buyer, approached appellant, who, upon inquiry, sold him a plastic sachet containing 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride for ₱100. Upon consummation of the sale, PO1 Mapula arrested appellant and recovered the marked money. The seized substance was later confirmed to be shabu.
Appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was framed. He testified that while he was in front of his house, policemen suddenly arrested him without cause and later demanded money for his release. His son, Rodante, corroborated this by stating he witnessed the arrest and that an officer claimed they had bought shabu from appellant. However, Rodante’s testimony conflicted with appellant’s account regarding the presence of appellant’s wife at the time.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Appellant’s belated challenge to the legality of his arrest was deemed waived. Jurisprudence holds that any objection to an arrest must be made before arraignment; failure to do so constitutes estoppel. Appellant entered his plea without prior objection, thus curing any procedural defect in his warrantless arrest.
On the merits, the prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery. PO1 Mapula’s clear and consistent testimony detailed the transaction, and the marked money and confiscated shabu were presented as evidence. The defense of frame-up was unsubstantiated and inherently weak, especially given the conflicting testimonies of appellant and his son. The lack of any formal complaint against the arresting officers for alleged extortion further undermined the defense’s credibility. The chain of custody of the seized drug was also established, confirming its integrity as evidence. Hence, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.